Oil is to progressives what Planned Parenthood is to fundamentalists. There's little point trying to discuss reasonable ways to use or develop it. When progressives hear the word "oil" all that comes to mind is the left wing equivalent of dead babies which is, of course, adorable birds rolled in crude. That's why the otherwise dull matter of the Keystone pipeline has devolved into a political stalemate. That stalemate in turn says a lot about our faltering politics.
In a country already crisscrossed by more than 200,000 miles of oil pipelines and deeply dependent on strategically dangerous energy sources, a new pipeline that will deliver abundant energy from our most reliable foreign partner seems like a non-issue.
Although the Obama administration has put the brakes on its development through the next election, the odds that the pipeline project will finally be blocked are almost zero. When the president has finished mollifying the professional left the project will almost certainly continue. Yet progressives are still foaming over the proposed Keystone XL project.
The left has two primary complaints about the pipeline, neither of which stands up to scrutiny. First, they are trying to paint the project as an unprecedented danger to the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. The aquifer is not particularly vulnerable to any sort of spill, even in the most outlandish scenarios. There are already oil pipelines over the aquifer, including a fully functioning section of the existing Keystone project which delivers oil all the way to Cushing, Oklahoma. Apart from the pipelines, vast amounts of oil are being stored or transported over this sensitive aquifer while you read this article.
Trucks, rail cars, storage facilities, even the notoriously leaky buried gas tanks at convenience stores are sitting on top of the aquifer. The concern over one additional pipeline with its accompanying bonds, safety features, and political attention is meaningless beside the activities which have proceeded there up to now with only minimal celebrity outrage.
The other concern is the project's carbon impact. As an example of the hyperbole driving this debate, NASA scientist James Hansen said the pipeline would be "game over" for controlling climate change and signed a letter referred to the project as a "carbon bomb."
According to the State Department's report, the highest estimates for the carbon output from this project would be equal to the development of 2-4 more coal-fired power plants. That's it. Hansen's overblown analysis assumes that the pipeline would lead to the exploitation of every molecule of tar sands, something that we could potentially do at full production by about the year 3316.
Even if the environmental concerns regarding the project could be taken seriously, the impact of the pipeline can't be evaluated without looking at its alternatives. This pipeline will not determine whether the Alberta oil sands are developed, it will only determine whether Americans reap any of the benefits.
It turns out there are other potential buyers of Canadian oil and they might be just a tad less likely than the Obama administration to influenced by the scientific concerns of Robert Redford. If the U.S. does not get less expensive oil from Canada, where will Redford get the energy to ship the overpriced products in his Sundance catalog? You don't get much energy from burning kitsch. That power will continue to come from strategically dangerous sources like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Russia, or from ecological nightmares like the Niger Delta or the Ecuadorian rain forest.
The biggest obstacle to a sensible energy policy is the refusal of both sides to deal in realities. While Republican Presidential candidates are accusing scientists of perpetrating a hoax, like they did with that "evolution" thing, progressives are mired in their own quasi-religious delusions that treat any oil or coal-based energy as some sort of secular sin. The Keystone opposition is not about global warming. It's not about protecting the environment. The debate over Keystone is a barometer of how difficult it has become for Americans to address any political issue in a rational manner.
We need to come to terms with these three realities: Much more of our energy demand should be met through domestic, renewable sources. There is no new energy source on the horizon that will completely replace oil, gas or coal anytime soon. And if we're ever going to develop alternatives, we will need the benefit of secure, inexpensive sources of oil, gas, and coal for the realistic near term.
Once it becomes possible for a majority on both sides to agree on these things, we will be able to build an energy policy that can address our needs. Until then expect lots more competing blather about devious scientists and evil oil companies and not much progress toward energy solutions.
David Suzuki: What's So Radical About Caring for the Earth?
"it will only determine whether Americans reap any of the benefits."
This pipeline will determine how much of Alberta Tar is developed, how it's developed, and how fast.
There are NO benefits to Americans from Keystone XL
There are many disadvantages; spills, pollution, health, higher gas prices and climate change.
Lots of pipeline opposition is centered around whether the "oil is going to stay in America" or not. This is a bit silly, oil and oil products are commoditized and traded on the international market. When the US imports raw crude, refines it, and sells it internationally, then it contributes to the balance of trade, and helps create a variety of jobs at the refinery and the port. A lot of these jobs are blue collar jobs that don't require a college degree.
Moreover, the liklihood that this pipeline will have zero impact on domestic pricing is absurd. There is a huge price spread between the price of oil at different physical locations in this country. This is because there is a insufficient pipeline capacity to move crude between various facilities. One spur of the Keystone XL project is designed to address just this price spread, and will surely return some savings to the domestic consumer.
Chris Ladd delivers a very reasonable and sane post on this subject. Renewable power is great, conservation is great. That's no argument for killing the development of much needed oil infrastructure.
“Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude...[U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the... [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.
The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.â€
Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation..."
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/
The federal funding for the pipeline is supposed to be private use neutral, i.e., the Kochs have pretty much tied up the capacity of the pipeline in violation of this stipulation.
Over 40% of the oil scheduled to come down the line is already contracted out for EXPORT as refined product. Guess who's behind this? The Kochs.
Just last week it was announced that refined petroleum products are now our largest export. Why? We have a refinery surplus & other countries have a refining deficit. More money to be made elsewhere.
Sand Hills, Neb geology would amplify any spill. A spill would go deep & wide very quickly & the water table is very close to the surface. After all it is sand. This water is not static, it supplies the S Platte. Water flowing underground.
You also fail to mention the taking of Native American tribal lands for this project.
I've said enough.
Coming from a Western Nebraska family, I can tell you that those folks are just as opposed to Planned Parenthood as they are to this pipeline.
It's about consumption as much as production. And it's about coal more than oil, sands included. Obviously fossil fuels are a luxury we won't be able to afford for much longer but the idea that we should purge common sense: the Canadian oil sands will be developed because you and I will keep driving regardless of the drivel emanating from our politicians and ourselves. Should it be shipped to China or piped to America?
Environmentalists and their skeptics need one another to understand the truth.
What do you say, if I say that to build a pipeline through America's heartland, to move Canadian oil to Asian markets, is un-American?
www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,†including pipelines.
“The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs,†the report says.- The Hill
Maybe if Transcanada greatly reduced the price of oil for america, i could see this as a mediocre idea. As it stands, I think it's a bad one.
Great idea. Should the "energy" in that equation be brought to us on oil tankers from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Russia? Might be nice to have a steady supply of it from Canada while we work out what our next fuel source is going to be.