EventStatement
AFPI fact sheet (David Vasquez): Keystone XL would have raised imports from "America's most reliable energy trading partner, Canada" to 1.38 million barrels a day
A fact sheet by David Vasquez for the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a Washington think tank, criticised the Biden administration's cancellation of the Keystone XL permit. It said the extension, projected to carry 830,000 barrels a day, would have raised imports from Canada to 1.38 million barrels a day. It argues for more Canadian oil through cooperation and says nothing about pressuring Canada or about how Canada might respond.
- Date
- Kind
- Statement
- Where
- United States
- Evidence
- Statement: Something was said. Weighted lowest: words cost less than actions. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- America First Policy Institute (AFPI) (acted); David Vasquez (acted)
Sources
- America First Policy Institute, “FACT SHEET: How The Biden Administration's Cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline Affects American Prosperity (AFPI; Wayback copy)” (external site), . source record
Quotes
“This extension would have increased the total amount imported from America's most reliable energy trading partner, Canada, to 1.38 million barrels per day, leading to lower energy prices and thousands of high-paying jobs.”
Claims that rest on this event
- In the foresight thought experiment: before Canada's response, what US voices wanted was a cooperative build-out framed as partnership (Project 2025's call for a hemispheric energy policy 'with Mexico, Canada', cross-border permitting bills, partnership resolutions in Congress), not one produced by pressure. None of it ties the build-out to tariffs.
Pre-response want: more Canadian crude via KXL.
Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment
Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.
Judged to fit the plain self-interest reading better than the foresight reading. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A 2023 fact sheet wanting more Canadian crude through cooperation says nothing about pressure or about Canada's response; it fits these readings equally. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | Consistent with plain US self-interest in Canadian crude, framed as cooperation with a reliable partner. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | Consistent with America First circles valuing more Canadian oil reaching the US; it shows interest, not that pressure was used for it. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A 2023 fact sheet wanting more Canadian crude through cooperation says nothing about pressure or about Canada's response; it fits these readings equally. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A 2023 fact sheet wanting more Canadian crude through cooperation says nothing about pressure or about Canada's response; it fits these readings equally. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Neutral weak | A 2023 fact sheet wanting more Canadian crude through cooperation says nothing about pressure or about Canada's response; it fits these readings equally. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Neutral weak | A 2023 fact sheet wanting more Canadian crude through cooperation says nothing about pressure or about Canada's response; it fits these readings equally. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Neutral weak | A 2023 fact sheet wanting more Canadian crude through cooperation says nothing about pressure or about Canada's response; it fits these readings equally. |