From the Canadian perspective, U.S. dithering over the pipeline project linking Canada to the Gulf Coast is an act of monumental stupidity. If we turn down the project, then the oil from Canada's tar sands will ultimately be sold to Asia despite current domestic opposition to a Pacific pipeline.
Meanwhile, we continue to battle in the hostile countries of the Middle East in a campaign seemingly designed to protect our energy security. Why not accept oil from friendly Canada rather that buying Middle East oil with blood?
American environmentalists see matters very differently, believing that the pipeline is a disaster in the making. Key issues include:
Here we see political personalities in action with their penchant for seeing everything in black and white, or our side versus theirs. Yet, a more mature perspective is possible, indeed essential.
If the Obama administration eventually gives a green light to the project, it is necessary that the pipeline is built to rigorous specifications that minimize any threat of leaks. Moreover, it behooves us to devise ways of reducing oil consumption and limiting production of greenhouse gases. Of course we should pursue renewable energy sources but that is a long term project that cannot satisfy current energy needs.
That leaves the threat to wilderness areas that sit atop the tar sands. Mining tar sands in Canada is a messy business involving destruction of pristine wilderness areas through strip mining. An alternative technique -- also destructive of ecosystems -- involves heating the tar in the ground so that it is liquid enough to be pumped to the surface. Whether to go ahead with strip mining and other destructive techniques is a decision for the Canadians and they seem to have decided to go ahead.
Whatever decision is reached, on the pipeline, we need to balance both sides of the debate in a mature way. Yet that may not happen. We are likely to get politics as usual. That is why we still have no coherent energy policy and have had no administrative leadership on environmental questions since the days of President Carter.
Energy security and renewable energy sources are both worthy goals. One does not have to be the enemy of the other. Both can be, and should be, pursued. We need someone who can get beyond the black and white of political talking points and articulate what is in the national interest. We need leadership. Our need for leadership on energy issues is equivalent to the lack of vision on environmental matters.
Robert Redford: Congress and Keystone XL: A National Disgrace
Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Proposal : The ...
Obama Denies Keystone, Will Allow Refile - Bloomberg
Obama kills Keystone pipeline — RT
Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline - US Business ...
Those of us living in DC and key electoral battleground states know just how much Big Oil cared about this decision. We were inundated in the last few weeks with more than $600,000 worth of American Petroleum Institute ads declaring that the pipeline is in the country’s national interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
evangelicalatheist
Comments (59) | Friends (1)
“I'm a retired process engineer. This XL pipeline has NOTHING to do with energy independence! The result of tar sands processing is what's called bituminous oil (it is of the consistency of wet cow crap). It's used as feedstock in the production of synthetics (nylon, rayon, synthetic oil, whatever). It's NOT refined into gasoline - as far as I know, there are no refineries in the Gulf equipped to process this type of oil. Dispersants will have to be added to get this "oil" to "flow" through the pipe. What kind of dispersants; toxic/non-toxic, volatile/non-volatile? Ask the people of Montana how they feel about Exxon's buried pipeline along the Yellowstone River (and the "cleanup"). It could be argued that this scheme would free-up other domestic oil for gasoline, but it's basically a "wash".
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm
Environmental issues aside, massive amounts of fresh water are needed for extracting this "oil"; water in the form of steam. The people of Alberta, Montana, and North Dakota SHOULD be concerned about what this will do to THEIR water table!
Last I heard this pipeline will END at Port Arthur, Texas; a "duty-free" port, allowing TransCanada to EXPORT the oil cheaply to foreign markets. This pipeline scam has NOTHING to do with jobs OR energy independence.”
This is WRONG, what we are definitely going to get is
:
Big Business as usual.
The 99% know who is really making the decisions and the money in this country!
Also, with tar oil being more corrosive and more likely to cause leakage problems, I see no upside to risking the poisoning of US soil, water, and wildlife for the profit of an oil company using the US as an export highway. The risk outweighs the benefit.
the record of the company stinks for job safety and preventing oil spills --- counting on employment cleaning up another "Gulf accident" ?--- how much would such as spill cost the US in dollars and degraded land and water?
Do you know any FACTS-- or just spewing the party line?
this is NOT going to be nationally owned oil, they'll sell it to China for more than they'l get for it here...try research, it's enlightening.
Oil is sold on the world market and we export as much refined product as we consumme.
Do you really think this stuff is stamped for US comsumption only??