Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

All sides wrong on Keystone pipeline

Immediately following the Congressional elections, the controversial Keystone XL pipeline proposal has again reared itself, with wild claims advanced from those who either advocate or oppose this project. By way of facts, what’s called the Keystone Pipeline is already in operation, transporting unconventionally produced/processed crude oil from reserves in Alberta, Canada, and conventionally produced light crude oil from U.S. reserves to several U.S. refineries.

The proposed Phase IV consists of a route that would replace the present section from Hardisty, Alberta, to a point in Manitoba, and then to Steele City, Nebraska. The new section would follow a more straightforward alignment from Hardisty to Steele City.

Advocates yell that the project would create thousands upon thousands of jobs and would contribute to U.S. energy independence. First, no pipeline project would create so many permanent jobs – the kind of jobs that boost an economy. Most of the jobs would be temporary, during the construction period. In other words, these would be “come and go” jobs. As for U.S. energy independence, the Phase IV would still have us importing crude oil from Canada (the “X” in “XL” signifies export, from Canada). In fact, this phase would increase our dependence on Canadian crude. As a further jolt to the independence claim, the entire pipeline (the Canadian and U.S. segments) would be operated by TransCanada Corp.

One of the gripes from environmentalists – that the new segment would contribute to climate change – is palpably without basis. Pipeline construction can disrupt terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. But once in place and operating, a crude oil pipeline is not emissions intensive, as is a plant that processes hydrocarbon feedstock.

At the bottom line, the present debate about the proposed new phase of the Keystone XL Pipeline amounts to a standoff between two extremist views – both lacking a solid basis. The most amusing objection comes from Canadians who see the pipeline as a threat to Canadian energy security. How about that: a pipeline that would reduce Canadian self-sufficiency and (at the same time) increase U.S. dependence!

Tom Wright

Aztec



Reader Comments