>> six families right now are in south dakota are in court with trans-canada trying to protect their land. as a nation we are facing our next moon challenge. energy is our moon challenge. and when i look at my three little girls, i want to make

sure that they know that i, as their mom, did everything i can to fight for sustainable energy and i know each of you want to do that as well. we want energy that is revitalizing our communities, not putting them at risk. and i know as americans that we can meet this challenge. we can do right by land owners. we can do right by workers. because we are americans and we can do this together. thank you. >> thank you. at this time -- i want to thank all of you for your testimony. very insightful. at this time to begin our questions, i would yield to the gentleman from illinois. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the courtesy of letting me go rapidly because i'm going to board a plane, and that plane that -- actually when i fly from st. louis, it is heavy crude from the canadian

oil sands that's already popped down to the refinery which is refined there and then piped to the airfield. so many times the jet fuel that i'm using to come back and forth is already established. you see in front of me the -- really the works of jobs. already because of this. you know, the oil sands is the third largest oil venue in the world. and you talk about north american energy security. this is what you talk about. you got caterpillar. i've been up to the oil sands. these things are massive. they're five stories tall. the towers are one story tall. teamster drivers. this is what it is. oil sands. come see the hearing we mine it, surface mine or you get it in sit u. it's going to the marathon refinery in robinson refinery,

good paying, great benefits. members of organized labor already benefiting. how many pipelines go through the acwhichfer right now. >> only one crude -- >> the question is, how many pipelines. can i answer your question? >> the question is how many pipelines go in the aquifer. >> in the state of nebraska there's one crude oil pipeline -- >> yeah. okay. and what's the other ones. >> there are -- >> there are three pipelines that go through the aquifer. >> you're absolutely confirm -- >> i'm reclaiming my time but i live in nebraska. >> reclaiming my time, ma'am. >> that's fine. >> that oil causes cancer. >> now, i'd like to go to again people can -- they're more than welcome to view this. i've had studied this stuff quite a lot. and i know it's a lot of jobs. mr. booker, how many jobs do you

project will be produced from your segment? >> for the labor's international union, it would be a guess but i can tell you what other projects we've done. >> quickly. >> ruby pipeline, el paso, we performed 2.1 million hours which generated $24 million infringe benefit contributions for our members. >> and this is probably -- this this is actually a 675-mile pipeline that this is being produced. mr. barnett how many, how many jobs do you think this produce? >> we expect this project to create over 1500 jobs. >> and you talked about the trans-alaska pipeline. one thing that's not -- you all tried to highlight this. my father-in-law was a microwave technician. he moved to alaska for those jobs. and that's the side benefits of -- and mr. burton, you were talking about the engines that

are being built. and the high transmission lines. same time that my father-in-law moved to alaska for this -- the high paying jobs, you got a job number for this project? >> contractors have shared with us their proprietary estimates that operating engineers would perform in the project in excess of 3 million hours are estimated for a number of those contractors. >> and how much government money is going into this? >> not a dime. >> is this a shovel-ready project in your view? members of organized labor? >> yes. >> yes. >> which sector is the president is going to mess over by making a decision? is he going to blow off his supporters in organized labor or is he going to blow off his friends in the environmental left after the election? anybody have any idea?

he's got to do one, right? he's either going to pick environmental left or jobs. i'm standing with labor. and i'm standing with jobs. and it's a great environment to be because sometimes members of the republican side aren't really considered to be total friends of organized labor and i get this and i do my best, as many of you know. but this is not the fight. if you want to help the president of the united states win re-election, this is the fight that he should have for jobs, 20,000 jobs. the last point i'll make is, the biggest oil spill occurred where? prince william sound, how many gallons? not gallons how many million of gallons? 55 million gallons of oil through a tanker. so don't come and preach to us about the spills from a pipeline

when the biggest environmental damage that could occur is tankers traveling around the world. i yield back my time. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. shimkus. now we recognize another gentleman from illinois, the ranking member, mr. rush, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and mr. chairman -- iron that this is -- the issue of jobs constantly mean banding about here and i'm extreme sensitive to the issue of jobs and unemployment. in fact, my district which is the first job of illinois, unemployment rate is twice to the national average for many of my constituents. i have multigeneration of unemployed people residing in my

district. so some of the concern about jobs is a concern that i've had for many, many years. and one that i face daily. in numerous hearings, though, in keystone, xcel as well as with private meetings in my office i have asked many experts, those who are components of this and from the american petroleum institute to the association of oil pipelines doing individual industry representatives about the participation of those minority-owned businesses and contracting in the pipeline industry. and it seems like no one, absolutely no one can give me an answer. i'm for jobs. i'm for the environment.

but i'm also for jobs for minorities and women-owned businesses. and i can't find not one scintilla of evidence that there is any minority-owned businesses and contractors in this entire industry. not one. and i've asked till i'm nearly blue in the face. the fact that some of these so-called experts that the level of minorities involved of that the operation of pipelines in just country leads me to believe that the numbers are so small there may be none existing. to shed more light on it, i want to include a comprehensive study in the pipeline safety reauthorization bill that is currently being renegotiated or being negotiated. but i have all my union friends here. and i must say that some of them

are friends and supporting me in the past. but i'm really kind of a little disturbed and surprised that some of the issues right now. and i'll just ask you, each one of you who are representative of labor, can you speak? there any level of participation of contracting, workers or businesses that are engaged in each of your respective organizations? i want to know how many minority contractors -- how many minority workers and how many minority businesses are associated with the pipeline industry? and can you answer that question? >> i don't have the figures in front of me.

i'd be happy to provide them. i think what i could say, showing the support that we have from minority businesses and business people and laborers is we have the full support of the hispanic association and veterans association and it shows we do have significant support of minorities and perhaps some other gentleman from labor may be able to shed more light on that. >> yeah, i don't have any specific information regarding the question you asked. we'll be happy to forward your office upon the question of the hearing. so tt >> and we can provide you a good look at what we do for people of color and women in the operating engineers union. >> mr. barnett? >> first of all, i'd like to say that we are a membership-driven

organization. we are not contractor-driven. we do not track that type of information. i can tell you that we do have a large number of minorities in our local union that we're very proud of, that go out there every day, they perform their work and those are the people that we go to bat for every day. >> all right, mr. chairman, i really -- i know my time is up, but, again, i'm coming up against some that i can't dance to and i'm sorely disappointed and that's an issue that this committee and this subcommittee is going to have to address. and for the members of the labor who comes before me, before this company, and not have good firm information for me, i think that's atrocious. and with that i yield back the balance of my time >> thank you, mr. rush. at this time we'll recognize mr. mckinley. he also has transportation issues. you're recognized for five

minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before we had this hearing, i went back and looked at some of the things that were said, what were in the press back if the '70s before the alaska pipeline. there, the criticism was the effects on the tundra, possible pollution, harm to animals, geographic features and the lack of engineering. then they went ahead and they built it. 800 miles long, 48 inches in diameter, cross stream mountain chains, 30 rivers. it seemed to have worked. so today i'm just curious in the last 30-some years since that pipeline was put in, in the '70s, how much we've improved. and i've heard all the scare tactics from the friends on the other side, that this is a very corrosive, difficult product to

handle. but i think engineers over the years have developed ways of handling that. we can have ceramic-lined pipes. we can do a lot of things. if we can pipe hydrocoloric acid, we sure as a dickens can pipe crude oil. so i'm just curious from the panel from a construction background some of the improvements we've made. i assume that now, 30 years later, we didn't have x80 steel, 80 kidnp steel. we use that. some of the welding techniques that we've learned over the years that have developed from our friends from the construction industry with a low hydrogen electrodes that we're using. i assume -- can you amplify a little bit about some of the improvements that have happened over the last 30-some years in construction that we -- why we should have a greater comfort level? >> yeah, i'd be happy to. i think if you take a look at

pipelines, the majority of pipeline incidents come from really two areas. they come from corrosion of the pipeline. and they come from third-party strikes, sort of whether it's a backhoe, some third-party agency acting on the pipe and since the alaska pipeline was built, let's talk about corrosion, for example. today, all new pipelines are built of much stronger steel. you mentioned x80 steel. it is far stronger. it is more puncher resistant. on the corrosion side, every pipeline built has protection which is running an electrical current in the pipeline and every pipe we will build is coated with fusion bond epoxy coating. when you combine that, you would expect that 50 years from now you would take those joints of pipe out of the ground and they would have no evidence, whatsoever, of corrosion. so that is how far the industry has come on corrosion.

on line strikes -- as i said, we're using stronger steel. one of the 57 special conditions which we voluntarily agreed to with this pipeline is that instead of building the pipe, burying the pipe 3 feet under the surface we're burying it 4 feet under the surface which should largely remove that risk and on top of that we've accepted an obligation to continue to maintain that depth of cover over the entire pipeline, over the entire time it's operational. and then, you know, finally when it comes to leak detection. you heard other people talk about that today. we have 21,000 sensors on this pipeline. they are regenerating data every 5 seconds. if there's a drop of pressure, we will know immediately. and the pipeline will be shut down automatically. in literally minutes and at that point, you have a cleanup situation. >> what was the ratio -- what was that like on the -- on those leak detectors on the alaska

pipeline? >> i don't know the exact amount, but it certainly would be -- we have multiple redundant leak detection systems. >> there was another issue that was raised by the national chief of the denny nation, i guess, if i'm pronouncing that correctly and he made some really good points, some excellent points. one we had to do with tail ponds. years back in the '70s they weren't using an epdm liners. they were using the clay liners primarily with it. so our construction knowledge has expanded so much over those 30 years. are you expecting when -- are you going to be using liners at your impoundment pond for your tailings? >> we don't produce any oil ourselves. we just move it. but what i would say -- a good number to think about that is going forward, approximately 70 to 75% of all future oil developments in the oil sands

are actually going to be done through in situ drilling and those do not including tailings pond. >> in summary, our welding techniques has improved, steel -- you're using cortend on areas that we didn't have available 30 years ago. so technology has really moved. so if it worked back 30, 40 years ago, i don't understand -- unless there's another agenda here, and that's a little bit more sinister about why we're not allowing this to progress and putting our people back to work. so i think the technology is fine. it's the other -- the political side of it is where we're hung up right now. >> representative, can i just follow up on the -- >> i'm over my time. >> his time has expired. at this time, i recognize the full committee, ranking member, mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for those who may be viewing

this hearing, i think they would be struck as i am that the only way republicans can deal with the fact that some people have some questions about the pipeline is it's a conspiracy. there's some hidden agenda. it's all politics. one of the republicans who asked questions, who president obama is going to choose, the environmentalists or the labor union? they only think of this in these terms and they want to make this a political issue. well, the question of the decision to go ahead with this pipeline is a serious one. and i think we need to fully understand the implications of approving energy structure that's going to last for decades. and i wouldn't make light of it just because the republicans want to use this hearing for their own political purposes. i think it's appropriate for the president of the united states to review this matter. i think it's appropriate for the government agencies and people in the state of nebraska to review this issue. the republicans put a bill

forward -- which they've already put through the house saying we should decide this issue in a shorter period of time and decide it favorably for the alaska pipeline. they don't really want to know the truth. they just want the pipeline. and my friend who just asked questions on the republican side talked about the -- how there must be this hidden agenda because it's perfectly safe. well, we do already have one keystone pipeline, and it's certainly a lot later in time than the alaska pipeline because it's been within a year. and this this year of operation showed that there were a dozen spills. some of these spills were shut down temporarily. but let me go to the question that bothers me the most. and what this impact -- what the impact will be for this pipeline if we see it go forward on the

climate problem that we're seeing in just country and all around the world. republicans don't even believe it's such a thing. they deny the science. when they hear scientists talk about it, they think it's a hidden agenda so they can't take another point of view seriously because they're so convinced that they're right all the time. the decision is an important one. they want to short circuit the process. ms. kleeb, you and your neighbors have been fighting for a thorough version of the pipeline. do these nebraska laws satisfy your concerns? we've been told nebraska has passed some laws and let this whole thing go forward. >> so they are definitely in a step in the right direction and i'll say the only reason we have those bills is because citizens and landowners raised hell for two solid years at our state capital to make sure those bills got passed. we still don't have a study on tarsands. and i hope that representative

terry would introduce that on behalf of nebraskans to make sure any tarsands pipeline that does get approved -- that we make sure that is safe. we don't know how tarsands -- >> well, representative terry's original plan was the original pipeline route was fine. he was for this project. >> that's right. >> and he thinks what's important, jobs, jobs, jobs. the alaska pipeline was taking oil. it was taking us through not very populated areas. this is a different kind of pipeline. because it's going to take the dirtiest source of oil available, and it's going to drive a significant increase in carbon pollution. what was your concern about the original route? i guess the original route is not going to happen. that's not because of trans-canada but because of nebraska. what was your concern about the original route? >> that it was going to cut right through the sand hills. we have no oil pipelines, tarsands or traditional crude that cross the sand hills

currently. >> and the sand hills is where the aquifer is? >> the sand hills have a relationship with the aquifer. it's a very inticontract ecosystem. it lays beneath the entire state of nebraska. it obviously provides water for the backbone of our state's economy. and the detection system, quite frankly, of trans-canada first pipeline we know is not a very good one since a landowner in north dakota had to be their detection system. their sensors did not work in that scenario. >> when we hear about these jobs, we're hearing estimates based on a long period of time, in fact, job estimates -- assuming this whole thing will operate for 100 years. well, that that's a century of oil addiction that will be locking in higher carbon pollution for 100 years. and we can't afford to keep building dirty energy infrastructure that's going to last decades.

the iea the national energy said we'll have to make a significant move toward cleaner energy to avoid a 11-degree increase of global temperature. i don't know if that's democratic or republican but i think it's a perfectly important, legitimate concern and shouldn't be just dismissed by the republicans 'cause they want to wonder whether obama is trying to satisfy one interest group or another. so i just raise these issues. i think this is an issue that's worthy of our serious consideration by all the appropriate agencies. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. waxman. mr. -- well, before i -- ms. kleeb, this committee passed a pipeline safety bill and a request for study was part of that. i voted for it. mr. pourbaix, can you tell -- on behalf of -- you're the representative from trans-canada pipeline. the company builds pipelines, right? >> uh-huh.

>> if a pipeline was not built, would oil sands from alberta still come into the united states to be refined? and if so, how would it be transported? >> there is some capacity left on existing pipelines that cross the border. and those pipelines can get probably a few hundred thousand barrels incremental oil into the chicago area. the problem is, is that there are no pipelines that are in place that can take that oil from chicago to where it is needed, which is the gulf coast. >> right. >> yeah. the answer is more pipeline capacity is needed. >> is that the safer mode of transportation as opposed to -- i've heard of rail. >> well, it's interesting right now and a lot of people have

mentioned balkan foundation in montana. it's rapidly growing in production. it's anticipated to be 800,000 barrels a day in the next five years. right now there are no pipeline options. and all of that incremental production is being moved either by truck or by rail car. as you heard, some of the other gentleman speak about -- both of those -- not only are they much more costly, they are several orders of magnitude more risky in terms of risk to the environment and risk to human life. >> and in regard to risk, has the risk of the keystone pipeline, the route -- why we're here today, has that been studied? >> well, we are -- >> the environmental impact studies? >> in august of this year, the state department completed their close to 40 month environmental impact review. in that, the conclusions of that study -- it was the most

comprehensive study of any oil pipeline in the history of the united states. and it today to the conclusion that this pipeline would be the safest crude oil pipeline ever operated in the u.s. >> so the route -- >> that was the largest challenge we had in nebraska -- until the state department came out with their most recent delay, they had come to the conclusion that the preferred route was the lowest environmental impact, and had we voluntarily moved that route, we would have created a significant uncertainty as to whether any new route could be permanented because by definition it would have a higher -- >> and so that was why the state department be part of that agreement to move it off the

sand hills. what is the total investment into the keystone pipeline? >> including the operating -- >> no. well, let's just deal with -- >> the new proposal. >> part steel and construction costs. >> so we right now are $2 billion into this project. by the end of next year, we will be close to 3 billion. the total project cost would be about approximately $7 billion. >> 7 billion. and out of the 7 billion, though, how much of that would be construction job-related? >> 4, 4.5, 5 million, in that range. >> 4.5 to 5 billion going towards worker salaries? >> yes. >> mr. booker, could you -- have you estimated how many man hours your union would dedicate to

this pipeline? >> rough estimates were well over 3 million man hours compared on similar projects, ruby pipeline, 680 miles. we performed 2.1 million man hours on that project. >> i'm going to interrupt because i only have 37 seconds left. so do you have an estimate of how many man hours your union haul would supply, or your union would be -- >> over 3 million. >> you mentioned that earlier. mr. barnett? >> approximately 2.5 to 3 million man hours. >> mr. burton? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> we're probably a little bit on the low side. i did a quit math just the numbers we're talking about. about 63,000. we're probably the lowest trade. >> in my 5 seconds, ringo, i want to say i support the research and development and al-gil, in fact, university of nebraska, i've helped them get some grants to do research.

i hope you are very successful in your operations. i actually have a bill, too, to allow biofuels. under current law, the loan program can only go to gas and oil pipelines. i've got a bill -- would you agree -- how would you feel if the bill that would allow pipelines would be built to carry fuels from those made from algae? >> well, i think it's important that we first have to give consideration to whether there's going to be any adverse impact of building any type of pipeline. >> okay. >> for the people that live in the closest proximity. >> fair answer. at this time i think it's mr. ingle, the gentleman from new york, is recognized for five minutes. oh, mr. caster was here first. i'm sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to all the panelists who are here today. i'd really like to encourage my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle to organize a bipartisan hearing on jobs related to the fastest growing energy sector, and that is clean energy and renewables. clean energy is creating good jobs all across america. and most -- it is most often not accompanied by the harmful impacts to the health in our communities, environmental impacts, impacts to the water that we drink and rely upon. and i think americans are crying out for jobs tied to this growing clean energy sector. in fact, the international energy agency recently reported and confirmed what we're all feeling and what we know, that the fastest growing sector is in clean energy. it is now the -- the clean

energy sector is providing one-fifth of all electricity global. one-fifth of all electricity worldwide. and it is growing. and this is where the emphasis in national policymaking should be placed now because think about the -- the divergent views here on the impacts to this community. when you talk about clean energy, it's something that brings us all together. it creates jobs, in communities that needs those jobs. provides a great shot in the arm for utility companies. and others. but it safeguards community health. and i think one of the reasons why it's important for the keystone pipeline to continue to undergo review is that there are a lot of unanswered questions. and there are a lot of serious concerns that have been raised. carbon pollution, clean water impacts and safety concerns. right now we know that

extracting tarsands and upgrading it to synthetic crude oil produces roughly three times greater greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pollution. can we do something about that? do we need to put all of our emphasis on a -- on an energy source that is going to aggravate the carbon pollution problem? folks are very concerned about the quality of the clean water that they rely on. and the safety concerns are really raising a lot of red flags mainly because of the risks that have been covered just over the past year. in michigan, an 800,000 gallon spill plus outside of chicago, a 250,000 gallon spill. 1.3 million gallon spill in alberta tarsands.

and on may 7th the there was another warning when it spilled 21,000 gallons of crude in north dakota. that was its 11th and most significant spill so you can see there are a lot of concerns that i think require the administration to continue an all-out review of the impacts. on safety, of course, one of the major concerns is the transporting of the diluted biterman through the mid of the united states. and many are concerned that the substance is more corrosive than conventional oil and may pose a greater threat to pipeline deterioration. when the head of the federal pipeline safety agency testified before this committee, she said that the agency hadn't yet studied whether this tarsands oil poses unique threats to pipelines. another question is whether the tarsands oil is more difficult to clean up after a blowout.

last year as i mentioned there was a major tarsands oil blowout in the kalamazoo river in michigan. and i understand this heavy oil sank to the bottom of the river and it may have made it more difficult to clean up. >> their organic certification go away as soon as there's a tar sand spill goes on their land.

i have personally met families who have been affected by the kalamazoo tarsands spill, they are not only facing from the miner if you will headaches or bloody noses. people are having seizures and are seriously injured from the tar sand spill that happened in michigan. and 150 families had to be displaced from their oil price. these are are valid concerns. and if tarsands in canada are concerned they will not mind doing the additional scrutiny in the united states. there are two assumptions are being made. one that sar sands are safe, that two that this oil is going to be made for the consumption. and these two assumptions are not backed up by facts and that's what we're asking for. landowners, ranchers, moms, we're all asking for facts. >> the gentlelady's time is a

minute over. thank you. mr. burgess for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not going to do justice to your name but mr. pourbaix? >> pourbaix. >> and i apologized if you answered this question before and i missed it. what is the capacity of the pipeline in question to deliver oil at the capacity, say, barrels per day? >> it is around 830,000 barrels a day. >> so that's a fairly substantial amount. how does that compare with other delivery systems, other pipelines? >> it is not -- it's not different from other large scale oil pipelines in the u.s. there's lots of pipelines in that range of 500,000 to a million barrels a day. >> what does -- for point of comparison, what does the alaska pipeline deliver? >> jeez, i'm trying to think.

it is significantly over a million barrels a day? >> but this is a significant contribution to america's energy needs? >> oh, absolutely. >> presuming the energy is used in america? mr. ringo, i was fascinated to hear your testimony, certainly interested in what can be done with using algae as a source for -- as a petroleum stock. where is your plant currently? >> we have a plant -- we've opened plants in calhoun, georgia. we're about to open a plant in augusta, georgia. we have plans to open a plant in michigan, california, and i'm in talks in your home state of texas. >> okay, just give us an idea of how scalable is this production? for example, how many barrels a day can be delivered in one of your plants that is up and

running and mature? >> well, it's scalable based on demand. our process, without giving away our trade secret here -- >> i don't want you to do that. >> there's a scalable amount that we can increase our production based on demand. and we have the extraction process in place that we can extract the oil and deliver as a biofuel feed stock or in the pharmaceutical industry for the omega 3's that are present in the product. >> do you see a point where one of these plants could produce 100,000 barrels a day? >> absolutely. >> 200,000? >> absolutely. >> how does it go from there to where you need it used? >> normally you can build the plants onsite. where you have a biofuels plant you can build an algae manufacturing at the plant. you can move others by either a pipeline or truck, but definitely have to do the studies to make sure that in any -- as in any product that

there's not going to be any adverse impact on communities and on people and the environment in a transfer of the product. >> okay. your company is bard holdings? >> yes. >> is that a publicly held company? >> yes. it's a brand-new company, yes. >> so the ability for us, for example, to see the financials would not -- is that possible or not possible? >> not as of yet, but soon. >> when where is your primary financing come from? >> not from the government. it's private financed, yes. >> you know, it was interesting to hear the comments about we ought to have some hearings on clean energy. and oversight and investigations we're having a lot of hearings on solar energy. it's not good news, necessarily, for the solar energy folks so i'm glad to hear you're doing this on your own. you have people who have invested, venture capitalists i presume who put their own money at risk and they believe in the market ability of this product. that's the american story. that's the american way.

i'm glad to see that is happening. mr. barnett, you've talked about the transporting fuels over land if you don't have a pipeline, you put it in a truck. did i catch that part of your testimony correctly? >> no, that was not. i think that was mr. so the s-- soth. i beg your pardon but there's a inherent risk to transport over land petroleum products? >> the environmental suggest fatality is 87 times more likely with a tanker truck compared to a pipeline and i believe 37 more times likely to cause a fire and/or explosion than a pipeline. >> yeah, my congressional district sits in north texas. interstate 35 -- 35e and 35w run right through the heart of my district. and probably three years ago we

had a tanker truck that jackknifed and buckled and hit the concrete wall in the middle of the freeway and caught on fire and significant loss of life. impressive that there were so many people that were suddenly immobile once they got in that mess they couldn't get out. and it was extremely disruptive for a period of days. it wasn't just a traffic jam and you hear about a rush hour. this went on for a long time. so i can see an upside to getting these off our freeways. that is a reasonable approach and i'm glad you came and shared that with us today. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. at this time another gentleman from texas, mr. green. >> after both of us here are going to get used to our texas accents. i have a number of questions and i know i'll run out of time. but my first one -- i want to ask mr. barnett -- and i know there's testimony, there's a

project labor agreement on the pipeline, does that project labor agreement cover the whole part of the pipeline, literally from where it ends in the district i represent up through oklahoma into canada? >> at the present time the project labor agreement covers approximately 90% of the work. there's a sentence in that's not written in the agreement. >> i know i've worked with folks from canada and i hope that would be dealt with because if we have a project laborer up north then i'd sure like my folks to be able to be covered by it. >> exactly. if we're going to sell this skill, than this craftsmanship in the pipeline we'll have to sell it all the way through. >> mr. ringo, one, i appreciate you being here. and i appreciate your work for your 25 years in the petrochemistry. you heard earlier, i represent a lot of what used to be ocaw but they're all steelworkers now. >> right. >> i used to have steel plants and thousand they're all

chemical workers. i know you've been on board on the national wildlife federation and bard holdings and i appreciate what you're doing in some investment, i know some companies in houston are doing some investment in algae in louisiana and other locations and that may be something we can do many years from now. but we've heard testimony today from a number of folks about the safety issue. and right now like north dakota does, they have to truck out all their crude oil they produce in north dakota because there's no pipeline. has the national wildlife association or the apollo license have they done anything from the safety in tanker cars on rail or trucking, oil out as compared to a pipeline? 'cause we've heard that 87 times likely to have an accident if you truck it out and i don't know what it is for rail cars. but i know everything i've learned all these years is that it's so much safer to be in a pipeline than it is on a tanker

truck on the road or even a tank car on a train. do you know if the wildlife federation -- i know it's not the first time we've gone over sensitive wetlands, for example? >> sure. and i think during my time as leaders of these organizations, our primary focus was to consider other alternative energy solutions that a tank truck or a pipeline was not an issue. when you're talking about extracting oil from algae, when you're talking about growing biofuels projects. when you're talking about electric cars and energy efficient vehicles, you do not face the possibilities of environmental impacts of a -- >> and i agree. although -- and i only have five minutes. >> yes. >> i also understand, you know -- i was so hopeful 'cause the gm and the chevy volt but, obviously, we have problems with that. so every source of energy is going to have a problem. and right now, though, and even no matter who's in charge of the department of energy says for the next 30 years we'll be on hydrocarbons. and, of course, i have to admit

i'm prejudiced because i have lots of refineries and chemical plants and we produce that in our district. and we also have the downstream. that was -- so every energy, but you don't disagree with the testimony that -- sending it by truck or rail is much more dangerous than pipelines? >> and with that, mr. green, yes, i do agree with that. there are challenges. >> i only have a minute and a half now and i don't know if we'll get a second round because we keep losing members. mr. pourbaix, again, i apologize coming from texas my friends in louisiana are used to your -- but i was disappointed of the decision by the administration particularly since i represent those refineries. my question and it may be speculated but i know there's some contract signed on 2014 deliveries. are those contracts enough that they could be flexible that if we delayed it like the president said to 2013, i don't see how

you could ever deliver those contracts in 2014. >> obviously those shippers in your district the reason they signed their districts because they're traditional heaviest sources of crude are declining in production and their contracts are expiring in 2014. that is their primary reason why they signed up with trans-canada. we have spoken to all of our shippers. i think it is fair to say they were deeply disappointed by the decision to delay their -- >> okay. so you can't make those contractors in 2014? >> we are working with them in order to have them stay with us. >> mr. chairman, i know i'm out of time. but i have those five -- out of those five refineries, they require 5 billion oil of day. a larger refinery i have months

ago they are buying it on the open market and literally from the mississippi river down to corpus christi texas and we need that pipeline. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. green. now, the gentleman from new york, mr. engel is recognized for five minutes. >> i'm probably a few of this subcommittee that's really in the middle on this. i've been listening to the testimony. on the one hand i'm concerned about the environmental impact. i think mr. waxman made excellent points. and i think we need to be concerned about that. we cannot say no to everything. i for one opposed drilling in alaska. because i thought it was the wrong thing to do by a mental point of view. but we can't just keep saying to everything and then complain that gasoline is $4 a gallon and

that we're beholden to hugo chavez and the saudi royal family. i think we have to have a little bit of a balance. i was disappointed in the administration's pushing back of this deadline because i think it's time to make a move one way or the other. we all know what the issues are. and we can make a decision. and i just think delaying it doesn't benefit anybody. now, i'm for renewables. i think it's important to have clean energy and sustainable energy. but i frankly don't think we can move from step 1 to step 10 overnight. i don't think it's a matter of, you know -- moving to sustainable energy, clean energy and turning off hydrocarbons at the same time. there has to be a transition. it's one of the reasons why i have fought for legislation to have a renewable fuel standard

for all cars that are made in america. i think that we should have them built so that they can run on ethanol, methanol and gasoline as is the case in brazil. and which would be able -- we'd be able to do it with $100 or less per car cost to manufacture these cars. so i don't think it's a black and white situation. and that's why i'm open-minded to this. my concerns are environmental. i understand the unions want jobs. i'm very prounion. i support their wanting jobs but i think we need to -- to make sure that the environmental impact on this is something that is not going to be -- be negative. i wonder if anyone on the panel would like to say -- ms. kleeb, in her testimony, said that we ought to put in the legislation

that the oil is guaranteed to be used in the u.s. is there anyone on the panel who can tell me why that can't be done? yes. mr. pourbaix? >> i'd be happy to take a shot at that. i think, you know, right off the bat you have to recognize that the u.s. -- the u.s. produces about 5 million barrels of oil a day and consumes about 20 million barrels a day of refined products. the u.s. is by far the largest consumer of refined products on the planet. so i think just saying -- it is natural that the vast majority of this product will stay in the region with the highest demand. i would make one point. the u.s. is a preponderance of a need for gasoline, to move motor vehicles. anytime you take a barrel of oil, it will produce a certain proportion of gasoline, a certain proportion of diesel.

when you see exports of refined products coming from the u.s., it is largely moving away. excess diesel, while the u.s. continues to import what they need which is gasoline. i think if you were to artificially set requirements that would prevent that, you would prevent the reasonable allegation of that argument. >> i want to go to ms. kleeb who raised some environmental issues particularly with nebraska an opportunity to perhaps refute some of the things that you've heard. >> yeah. and so i mean, essentially the answer is no. is trans-canada just told us, no they will not make a commitment that the oil is going to be used by americans. and so we are assuming all of the risks, right through the heart of our country. and not getting any of the rewards of this energy. and, quite frankly, i don't think that's right and i don't think americans, when they hear that, think that's right either. and we do know that the refineries that they do have

contracts with, are ones that are retrofitting the refineries in order to export that diesel, exactly of what he's talking about. this is an export pipeline. this is not about energy security. this is about trans-canada having oil that they need to get on the market. >> thank you. i see my time is up, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. engel. at this time the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. mr. pourbaix -- >> yes. >> you told us repeatedly that the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on imported oil. in fact, trans-canada's application for its permit even states that the proposed pipeline will serve the national interest of the united states by providing a secure and reliable source of canadian crude to meet the growing demand by refineries and markets in the united states.

and in your testimony, you posed what you said was the key question. do americans want secure, stable oil from a friendly neighbor in candidate -- canada or do they want to import oil from unfriendly nations such as venezuela. some have questioned the energy security benefits citing plans by gulf coast refineries with whom trans-canada has entered into long-term sales contracts to reexport diesel and other refined products made from the keystone crude to latin america, europe and beyond. in other words, if this pipeline is approved, the united states may just become the middle man for shipping products made from some of the dirtiest crude oil on earth to foreign markets around the world. in fact, nearly all of the refineries where the keystone crude will be sent are located in port arthur, texas, which is

a designated foreign trade zone. this means that if these refineries reexported diesel or other refined products, they wouldn't even to have pay u.s. taxes on those exports. so mr. pourbaix, would trans-canada support legislation that ensures that the product can only move forward if the diesel or other refined fuels from the pipeline are only sold in the united states so that this country realizes all of the energy security benefits their companies and others have promised it would bring and to back out that oil from venezuela or from the middle east from the united states of america? would you commit to not having

that oil sold outside of the united states? >> as i said earlier, transcanada does not produce one barrel of oil. our entire business is safely transporting oil. that would be a question that i think would be better put to our -- to our shippers who are largely refiners and producers and largely american companies. >> well, would you -- would you agree to put a prohibition on reexport into your contracts with these refinerys to ensure that reexport does not occur. you have the power to do that. and then make that a legal part of the agreement and then that would make all of us feel a lot better. would you be willing to commit to make that a of being able to use the pipeline? >> if the concern that we're talking about is energy security for the u.s. -- >> that's right. >> if the u.s. government was to put that kind of a criteria on the approval of a pipeline, what

that -- i would argue that would actually reduce the energy security benefits to the u.s. because as i said, the u.s. is by far the world's largest consumer of refined products -- >> i don't understand why that reduces our security. we're just saying are you willing to contractually to keeping the oil here. it's only a redundancy at that point. will you commit to the redundancy of having it being put on paper as a condition and because you're saying it's going to happen anyway, that's what you're saying, what's your problem with agreeing that's the way it's going to be? will you commit to agree to put on paper what you say is going to happen in terms of keeping the oil -- >> as i said before -- >> yes. >> in order to get enough refined products that's needed for the u.s., the refineries produce from time to time more diesel than they use and they tend to export that diesel to europe and they import incremental volumes of refined products -- >> okay. would you agree that there would be a net -- there would be no net difference.

that the total amount of oil that is transported through the pipeline then has to have an exact corresponding amount that is imported in any other form than in order to make sure that the amount stays exactly the same so that our energy security in the united states backing out this oil from the middle east is, in fact, achieved as a goal? would you commit to that? >> once again, i in many ways -- i can't do that because i'm merely the shipper of this oil and that is a question -- >> no, i want you to make it a condition of shipping, that's your deal with these people. can you do that? >> no, i can't do that. we've already agreed to our shipping arrangements -- >> well, you can see why i'm very skeptical and the american people are very skeptical this is going to be conduit to port arthur, tax free to send this stuff around the planet and you just say, market conditions change and there's nothing in the free market that stops us from now sending this overseas. and meanwhile, all these environmental concerns have now

been overridden. so you can see why we're a little bit skeptical. we just want a little guarantee that we do get the national security benefit from it and a corporation isn't allowed because they're not legally bound to then skirt that commitment. so i have very serious reservations about this company and its commitment to -- it's real commitment to meeting the national security objectives. >> i thank the gentleman. your time has expired. and there is no one left to ask questions. and the prearranged agreement is that they are on a get-away day we're not going to have a second round of questions. [laughter] >> so i want to thank all of you for your time and effort in coming to this hearing. and you've been very helpful in the process, and that means all of you. thank you. >> thank you.