Not Dead Yet: Keystone XL Pipeline
By Steve Casimiro on January 20th, 2012
Excitement over Obama’s “no” on the Keystone XL pipeline should be tempered by the fact that the Alberta tar sands have too much oil that’s too valuable for the idea simply to go away. “Americans’ thirst for oil probably will push the administration and TransCanada Corp., the pipeline’s sponsor, to find a way to transport Canadian crude across the United States even if it’s not through a pipeline called Keystone XL,” the LA Times writes. Even environmentalists say this isn’t the end of things. Via LA Times.
But think about about it, the far greater carbon footprint, and the far greater risk of an environmental disaster, is taking a pipeline over the Canadian Rockies, and then shipping it over to China and India. Moreover, harvesting oil from Canada is far better than importing from places like Saudi Arabia and other unstable regimes in the Middle East. Finally, the pipeline will create tens of thousands of jobs – many of them union jobs – in a time when this country desperately needs jobs. This is a major Win-Win-Win scenario……
very true, unless this canadian oil was coming from oil sands. oh wait…
i don’t buy the argument that the Keystone XL is the best solution. i’m not sure i even buy that there’s a problem. i haven’t done any super detailed research, but i know that extracting a usable product from tar sands is an incredibly energy intensive process. is it possible that the amount of energy used to build the pipeline, build the processing plants at the fields, mine the tar sands, and then extract usable oil from them will outweigh the amount of potential energy stored in the tar sands, or at least put a sizable dent in it?
additionally, Glacier Hiker uses the jobs argument to support their conclusion. while the construction of the pipeline will create potentially tens of thousands of jobs, there is also the potential for contamination of the Ogalala Aquifer, where almost every farm in the midwest draws its water from. if the water is contaminated, there is an inevitable negative impact on farming, potentially driving farmers out of the business, reducing the amount of crops (mostly corn) grown, and probably driving up food prices. also, a lot of excess corn that’s grown goes to make ethanol which serves as an alternative for gas. no more corn, no more ethanol and gas prices will rise. there’s a whole other issue surrounding the production of corn and modern American farming, but that’s for another day and another post.
how about this as an alternative to the Keystone XL; we accept that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon and work to reduce our dependence on petroleum for energy.
Matt,
There are over 21,000 miles of pipelines across the midwest TODAY. When was the last time you heard of a major pipe break? Why don’t you oppose use of chemical fertilizers, since they are the real pollutants in the ground water.
As for lowered petroleum independence- you first. Give up your car and start walking! And give up all your backcountry wardrobe made from petroleum and go back to wool.
Well said, matt.
Yeah, well said Matt.
Did you miss the pipeline break in the Yellowstone river this summer, Velo?