Keystone XL Pipeline — A Disaster of Incredible Proportion
I was flattered when my first book, “Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies,” was made required reading in an environmental sciences class at a college in Northern California a couple of years ago. I remember the call I got from someone in the bookstore wondering if it would be possible for them to purchase a carton-load. “I believe that can be arranged,” I responded coolly, as my heart leapt with joy.
And speaking of required reading, I only wish there were a way I could establish that status for this article on the Keystone XL pipeline. In a few short paragraphs, readers will understand why this is a disaster, and why protesters are running into such aggressive reprisals. This is a full-on American disaster of epic proportion, unfolding right in front of our eyes.
Craig,
I think you’re indulging in a little wide eyed hyperbole here.
The Athabasca tar sands project is an environmental blight. It’s a horror story. We agree.
(though the tar sands project is nowhere near as horrific as coal, whether it’s strip mined or gathered via mountaintop removal).
But the Keystone pipeline will not serve to increase or decrease the volume of the Athabasca project. It’s a choice of whether they build a pipeline to the Gulf, or a more expensive pipeline to the Pacific… But they aren’t going to just stop producing oil at high profit because we block the pipeline…
The article contains a lot of hand-wringing about pipeline spills… But remember that in the 70’s the U.S. built the trans-Alaskan pipeline (a project that is far greater than the Keystone), and since its inception that pipeline has only spilled a few thousand bbls total, almost all of which were recovered.
The question is: “Is this being done with proper respect for safety and longevity”. If the answer is “yes”, then we will be fine. I do think the President was right to slow walk this, making absolutely certain that the proper redundancy is built into the design, and perhaps re-routing the pipeline so that it doesn’t travel over shallow aquifers. But I suspect he will eventually approve it, and environmentally I would consider that decision to be neutral – no more or less damaging than not approving the pipeline – because so long as sufficient care and redundancy is taken with respect to the pipeline planning, design, and construction; the only question is “will this increase, decrease, or have no affect on the total amount of oil produced via tar sands”. The answer is: “It will have no effect”.
So, the next question is: “The oil that is produced via the tar sands will be sold, and will generate a net gain of ~$10-$15/bbl for whatever country refines it… Do you want that to be America, or some other country?
Anyhow, that’s my take. I support as much time, as much redundancy, and as many safety precautions as the administration wants to stipulate (any extra costs are just stimulus infrastructure expenses paid for by TransCanada)… but in the end I’d rather our refineries process it and our ports export it than having someone else’s refineries refine it and someone else’s ports export it so long as there will not be a net increase in the tar sands production as a result. And I don’t believe there will be a net increase in tar sands production as a result.