Whatever the ultimate fate of the
oil industry, we are still in the business of building the infrastructure
necessary to internally supply the US Alberta
As they have every reason to thwart
this development it is hardly surprising to witness a well funded challenge to
the building of the pipeline.
You may think that 700,000
barrels is only a small fraction of the market, but in reality pipelines once
approved are immediately doubled and redoubled as the market dictates without
much regulatory fuss. Thus this pipeline
can quickly ramp up to 1.5 to 3.0 million barrels per day.
In that case, delaying the
pipeline a year or two is worth a great deal in terms of product sales
On top of all the oil sands
production continuing to come on stream we have a rapidly climbing output from
the Bakken that is sweet oil besides.
That pipeline allows North Dakota
production to displace oil sands production in present pipelines.
At the end of the day, the
pipeline will surely be cleared in spite of the political theatre.
Alberta-Texas Pipeline a Ray of Hope
One month after passing an
initial environmental review, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project crossed
another significant hurdle, as a series of State Department hearings in
states affected by the project drew to a close. Like any recent project
involving any sort of fossil fuel use, the Keystone XL pipeline drew the usual
crowd of protesters and fear-mongers. Yet, recognizing the importance of the
project in both economic terms and in terms of energy independence, Keystone XL
has garnered a
surprising amount of public support as well.
The pipeline, running from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast, would
have the capacity to bring an additional 700,000 barrels of crude oil pumped
out of Canadian tar sands. The United
States China and India
The State Department hearings reflected much of the poisonous influence
that the environmental Left and their partners in the mainstream media have had
on many otherwise reasonable, hardworking Americans. The environmental Left’s
core messages are: 1) there is no level of acceptable risk, 2) there are no
environmental missteps, only environmental disasters, and 3) anyone who
disagrees with message one or two is lying and, most likely, in collusion with
evil corporate polluters.
Consider, for example, how the concerns of one farmer in Nebraska
Their lifetime of experience has made them highly skeptical of studies
— by both TransCanada and the State Department — that conclude environmental
damage from an oil spill would be limited and localized. The water is not
static — it moves, Bruce says, and oil spilled into it will move, too.
“Them scientists are not telling the truth about that ground,” he told
Postmedia News during a break in the Lincoln
In fact, the highly sophisticated models that are used to determine the
extent and severity of oil spills do indeed take into account the fact that
water moves. We know, from decades of experience, how any kind of groundwater
contamination will act and how severe the potential damage is. And, after all
those decades of experience, we’ve gotten very, very good at both limiting the
size of the inevitable (if very occasional) spill and remediating any
environmental effects.
Yet, environmental groups and their media allies latch onto any story
– no matter how convoluted – that will play to the tired old
narrative that America is dangerously polluted and each new project brings us a
step closer to environmental catastrophe. In addition to supposedly poisoning
ground water in Nebraska , the environmental
Left asserts that crude taken from Canadian oil sands is more greenhouse
gas-intensive than other forms of crude and that emissions of other pollutants
will increase as well if this “dirty” crude is allowed to enter the United States
Both claims are silly. When you add everything up, oil sands crude is
middle of the pack when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, and the fact that
the crude is “dirtier” only means that refineries have to do more to remove
contaminants, not that the release of more contaminants into the environment
will be allowed. In any case, somebody – somewhere – is going to refine this
supply of crude. Growth in Asia guarantees
that there will be no shortage of demand for a long time. So the real question
is: do we want to make a deal with our neighbor to help stabilize our own energy
picture, or do we want them to sell it to somebody else? Either way, the wells
in Alberta
Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton has hinted that she is inclined to rule
favorably on the project. With an election year fast approaching, it would
appear to be in the administration’s best interest to push Keystone XL through,
if only to raise a little political capital among the millions of Americans who
remain distressed by the economy, gas prices and unemployment.
The political advantages were made clear during the recent hearings.
While hearings of this type usually only bring out the critics, many supporters
of the Keystone XL pipeline stepped up to the microphones to urge the
administration to move forward. The administration is expected to announce its
decision by the end of the year. Whatever the decision, it is sure to be
challenged in court by the parties who disagree with it, but that small ray of
sunshine peeking through the gloom of our cloudy energy future suggests that
the process – as cumbersome and time consuming as it may be – is moving forward
at long last.
Rich Trzupek is a veteran environmental consultant and senior advisor
to the Heartland Institute. He is the author of the Encounter Broadside
"How the EPA's Green Tyranny is Stifling America
