3 Reasons to Build the Keystone XL Pipeline

Few energy projects have inspired the level of vitriol surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline, that would run 1,700 miles from Alberta, Canada through the United States to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

The oil sands of Alberta are estimated to hold 170 billion barrels of petroleum, the largest reservoir of black gold outside of Saudi Arabia.

Because the pipeline crosses an international boundary, President Barack Obama has the final say over whether to give the project a green light.

Here are three reasons to build the pipeline:

1. The oil isn't going to stay buried.

American environmentalists oppose the pipeline partly because they oppose the burning of fossil fuels -- especially those extracted from relatively dirty "oil sands." But if America doesn't build the pipeline, that oil is still going to be processed and enter the environment. It'll just get bought by China and other countries looking for cheap and plentiful energy. And TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline, is already working on contingency plans to do just that.

2. The pipeline isn't a disaster waiting to happen.

Opponents say that the proposed route dangerously strays over part of the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, which supplies water for 20 million people. The governor of nebraska has urged president obama to start building. TransCanada has already agreed to redirect the pipeline to minimize hazards. It's also agreed to encase the pipeline in cement and post a $100 million bond to cover any possible cleanups.

3. It will help the economy.

Estimates for jobs related to the pipepline run everywhere from 6,000 to a quarter of a million, with TransCanada saying it will hire 15,000 workers to build the thing. The exact figures are unknowable, but once it's up and running, Keystone XL will adds billions of dollars in ongoing economic activity and tax revenues.

President Obama has the authority to stop the pipeline if he determines that it's not "in the national interest." Given the potential upsides of the project, the relative ease with which environmental concerns can be addressed, and the president's own commitment to what he calls "an all of the above energy strategy," it's hard to conjure up a strong case against building the Keystone XL pipeline.

Produced by Meredith Bragg. Written and hosted by Nick Gillespie.

[ReasonTV]

Come on, now, tell us what you all really think!

[spiritweird]

Secondly, the jobs
created in Canada-while important to the Canadian economy—should not then be pitched
as “American jobs” to the media and the American public.
30

[Technoguy]

I have no problem with the pipeline as long as landowners are fairly compensated for having it run through their property.

[MarsO]

The idea that ANY oil spill, no matter the source, is "easy" to contain seems extremely flawed to me.

[spiritweird]

The main workers on the Union Pacific were many Army veterans and Irishmen. Most of the engineers and supervisors were Army veterans who had learned their trade keeping the trains running during the Civil War. The Central Pacific, facing a labor shortage relied mostly on Chinese emigrant laborers for construction, contracted by Crocker, who handled the heavy labor over the Sierra Nevada mountains and across the Nevada desert, finally meeting in Utah.

[wholesystems]

If your gamble is correct - which, given the innumerable pipeline failures thus far, is highly unlikely, are you still saying that mining out a finite resource which is highly destructive in extraction, processing, (often in transport) and in use, is a viable approach to the future?

[infinityand]

I do not disregard the EIA, who have stated this plainly, as well as TransCanada who is building the freaking thing. We already have the infrastructure and are already pumping this stuff through pipelines to our refineries. Getting to our ports is what the goal of this pipeline is. As far as your point about pumping water into Alaskan wells, we're doing that all over the freaking world. That's because most major fields are in decline. That's why these unconventional sources are so valuable.

[rei-drwl]

"The pipeline isn't a disaster waiting to happen"

[Ragnarokgn]

4. The oil will be directed to a refinery regardless, but a pipe will do so with less emissions/pollution than any type of vehicle.

ie. it is good for the environment to use the economically most efficient method for transportation

[scrunner]

1. If you actually ever lived in the mountain west region, you would know what remote locations and cold weather are.
2. soil erosion effects agriculture as well.
3. Pushing something uphill multiple times takes more energy.
4. They are taking public funds to make the pipeline. This in effect raises the deficit.
5. I never advocated repealing eminent domain. It should, however, be restricted away from private sector interests to dissuade corrupt means.

[jtarnuzzer]

No, it will not reduce the price of gasoline or diesel in any significant way and it doesn't make us less dependent. This stuff is being pushed through our country to refineries who will ship the finished product overseas. The US is already a net exporter of finished petroleum products... has this caused a drop in gas prices or diesel prices at the pump? This is all about the US taking all of the risks so that Big Oil can have access to more crud for refining and export.

[spiritweird]

» By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede
progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling
effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has
already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

[scrappmutt]

Honest question, not looking to debate, but why can't the oil be refined in Canada closer to the oil fields? Is it that legally they can't build refineries, is it more economically sensible for it to be in Texas for distribution after refinement, or physically it can't be done in Canada (because of temperature, latitude, some other bizarre reason?).

[spiritweird]

Of this writing, TransCanada has not received the Presidential Permit that is required to
construct the KXL pipeline, but has already signed contracts for almost 50% of the steel
pipe for the project.

[Bass]

nothing is wrong with voicing the opinion of not wanting it for the environment, but physically i couldnt stop it

[spiritweird]

A fact that I am learning little by little is that the TransCanada company building this is using EMINENT DOMAIN as a key tool in building the pipeline. This is not a separate issue, but one of many key issues facing the building of this pipeline. If they can do this than any company can come and steal your property right from under your nose to do whatever they want with. Even if they end up doing nothing with it except tearing down your home and history.

[Scottit]

Accidents happen -- nothing is completely safe.
The 50, 000 miles of pipelines in the US have great performance.
Limiting various energy sources does not reduce the need, but increases the price (simple demand & supply econ).

[spiritweird]

Finally, there is evidence to suggest that TransCanada could be offshoring safety concerns,
as well as jobs. The fact that the steel and steel pipe are being imported from outside the
US has a safety impact in an area that has already been prone to catastrophic accidents.
As indicated above, the KXL project will be subject to more stringent safety specifications.

[spiritweird]

these figures essentially mean that transCanada’s claim that KXL is a $7 billion stimulus
to the Us economy is misleading on three levels. First, $1.6 billion will be spent on the
Canadian portion of the pipeline, drawing largely on Canadian material and labor inputs.
second, at least $1.8 billion of the $7 billion has already been spent, mostly on design,
permitting, and material inputs.

[ntruescotsman]

I think a problem is that people fail to realize how critical oil is as a edifice to everyday life. Not only as a energy source, but also as a base for many routine items that we take for granted.

To somehow believe that alternative energies will magically replace oil is very shortsighted and, quite frankly, foolish.

You cannot create paints, adhesives, plastics, tires, gloves, medical equipment, etc, etc out of solar energy or...hypothetical thermonuclear fusion. ;)

you're 100 % right