Why are congressional advocates of the Canadian Keystone XL oil pipeline resorting to so many deceptive claims when there is no dispute the project would create American jobs and bring business to our Gulf Coast refineries?
The answer is that there is much more to the story than its face value and it is all about drawbacks. When you get past the Republican hype designed to politically embarrass President Obama for refusing to approve the project's route across the American heartland, you discover the pipeline is not the economic bonanza or environmentally benign entity depicted by its boosters. On the contrary, a strong case can be made that our nation would be better off with no Keystone XL pipeline whatsoever. One needs only examine the proponents' exaggerated claims (including downplaying of environmental risks) to see why.
TransCanada Corp., the corporate sponsor behind Keystone, actually admits that if its tar sands oil is piped down to our Gulf Coast refineries, it would be shipped overseas for a more attractive price than it could garner here. So much for the Keystone supporters' contention that the project would ease our dependency on oil imports from unstable parts of the world. We are talking essentially about a sweetheart deal for TransCanada.
In its application, the company discloses that the pipeline is likely to result in higher rather than the cheaper gasoline prices touted by Keystone backers. That is because the project would allow TransCanada to draw down the reserves it has been storing in the Midwest and that have served to suppress prices at the pump.
The company warns that if we don't reconsider approval of Keystone XL, it will construct the pipeline across Canada to the British Columbia coast and ship the oil to China.
That is an empty threat when you consider that the Keystone oil our refineries would export could easily end up in China anyway. What clearly demonstrates that TransCanada is bluffing is that for all its menacing bluster, the company has said it will resubmit its application to the United States. No small wonder since the company faces considerable opposition from Canada's political minority party, as well as native tribes, farmers and other sundry individuals along the pipeline's prospective right of way. Enough of a ruckus has occurred to prompt Canadian regulators to announce a one year delay while the proposed domestic Keystone route is reviewed. There are environmentalists in Canada too!
What about jobs? Keystone backers' assertion that the pipeline will generate anywhere from twenty thousand to one hundred thousand jobs is wildly inflated. More realistic estimates by our State Department and independent researchers fix the number of jobs at 6,000, with most of them lasting no more than the two years it would take to complete the project. Still, some jobs are better than none, right? Maybe not in this case.
What of the possibility that the pipeline could turn out to be a net job loser? The increase in fuel prices could have a deleterious effect on Midwest employment. If there were a significant oil spill that contaminated the region's water supply, the adverse economic impact on farming and communities in the path of the pollution would be devastating.
By the way, if you think such an outcome is farfetched, TransCanada's oversight record is hardly stellar. Although mostly minor, there were 12 spills during the first year of the company's operation of its existing original Keystone pipeline.
Last but not least, the tar sands product is the dirtiest of oils making it a major pollution threat as it travels over a major aquifer through the heart of our country. Moreover, the pipeline would divert precious time and resources from development and distribution of clean renewable energy alternatives. These alternatives are the core of an effective program to curb global warming, which by extension would bolster the nation's chances for a secure future.
Republican lawmakers seem convinced that President Obama's handling of the Keystone project will fragment the support of his industry, union, and environmental backers and deal him a blow in an election year. But when the dust clears, it may be the lawmakers who are left holding the bag.
Follow Edward Flattau on Twitter: www.twitter.com/greenmorality
Our opponents are fighting hard against this decision to put our safety and sound science first.
The Obama administration did the right thing by refusing to green-light a project before experts could determine the consequences. After all, there was a lot at stake: the proposed 1,700-mile pipeline would have run over one of the Midwest's largest sources of fresh drinking water.
The appropriate scientific and public-safety review was under way, but Republicans in Congress thought scoring political points was more important.
This decision doesn't change the President's determination to take real steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in clean energy and get Americans back to work:
We're already importing 1.1 million fewer barrels of oil every single day;
We're getting 70 percent more power from wind and solar; and
We've supported more than 224,000 clean-energy jobs.
Energy efficiency measures like nearly doubling fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks for the first time in decades will:
Reduce our dependence on oil by an estimated 12 billion barrels,
Save families $1.7 trillion at the pump,
Make our air cleaner to breathe, and create jobs.
That's the kind of action we need to give our economy a boost and tackle big issues like climate change—but we're not done yet.
BarackObama.com
Nonsense on stilts. The project will be entirely funded by TransCanada Corporation without government funding. Indeed given the shot in the arm to the U.S. economy this will provide, it means that the U.S. will have MORE resources to commit to renewable energy research and development.
Lets put the resources to environmental friendly and get away from destroying the only place we have to live a place called Mother Earth
The China state oil company bought a controlling interest in the tar sands
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/03/us-athabasca-idUSTRE8020OW20120103
Canada has great wind and waste bio char bio mass. That is what they should be using, it's 1/4 the cost of tar sands energy, and carbon negative.
http://www.biochar-international.org/
plug in hybrids charged by rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels is a far better solution, and forever. Natural gas still emits more CO2, heavy metals, and methane, plus fracking is even worse, with massive water use and contamination.
green energy is not cost competitive with fossil and nukes. take away the billion is breaks and subsidizes for fossil and nukes and put them on rooftop solar, offshore wind, iefficiency and waste bio char bio fuels for at least the 50 and 100 years nukes and fossils have gotten them,
Who takes possession of any oil from a Keystone Canadian pipeline, and will the oil only be used for domestic consumption and to lower the cost for our energy needs - - or will it just be sold and exported to the highest bidder to another country for the highest profit? In other words, how will the American people benefit? Will this in any way make us more "energy independent"? Would drilling for more oil do the same?
Or should the American people get into the oil business?
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/01/keystone-pipeline-its-we-who-should-get.html
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2012/01/canadas-oil-sands-are-we-exporting.html
Canada's domestic supply of conventional crude has been on the decline since the early 1970s and despite the country's exports of synthetic crude, imports of nearly 800,000 BOPD are required to meet growing consumption. Perhaps the Harper government should be considering Canada's energy security ahead of security for both China and the United States.