I'm hoping I can weigh in on the Keystone pipeline before Obama vetoes the bi-partisan bill authorizing its construction. This is one of those political issues that I think highlight how dysfunctional our federal government has become. The stance of Congress, mostly on the right side of the aisle with a couple handsful of supporters on the left, is that the Keystone XL pipeline, an offshoot, a shortcut, if you will, of the rest of Keystone that has already been built would make it easier to get oil down from Alberta, Canada, to the refineries on the U.S. gulf coast. The majority of Democrats, following the lead of the White House, believe that more time is necessary to study the environmental and economic effects of the pipeline before authorizing its construction. Note, no one is saying it should NEVER be built, only that we need to take more time to examine the impact of building it.
First, let's get one thing right out of the way: the Republican argument that it will create 42,000 jobs. That's the figure thrown out there all the time by those on the right. It isn't a made-up one, but the report they are citing says that money spent on the the pipeline would help sustain 42,000 jobs. In the short-term it would create about 4000 construction jobs. Other jobs would be created both directly and indirectly by the construction, but not 42,000. Some of those jobs involved actually already exist, are filled, and are being paid today. So, while I'm sure that while locally it will help economies where it is being built, the construction isn't really going to have a big impact on the national job market. That was just a nice story for Republicans to throw out there when unemployment was so high.
I certainly wouldn't dispute that there are environmental issues at play with the construction of Keystone XL. However, assessments of its impact have been going on for five years now. The government itself published its "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" this time last year. Note the terms Final and Supplemental. It's supplemental because the government wasn't happy with the assessment created by a third-party that they allowed the owner of the pipeline to commission, which said that no significant environmental impact would occur. Guess what the government's independent assessment stated. That's right, that the pipeline and construction of the pipeline would have no significant environmental impact. Well, there was money well-spent. And how can the president insist that more study is needed when they've been holding on to the "Final" impact assessment for a year now?
In fact, Obama himself fast-tracked the construction of phase 3 of the pipeline in 2012. (The XL extension is phase 4). He made a big proclamation to the people of Oklahoma how he was going to cut through the bureaucratic red tape to get that phase built. We already have hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline criss-crossing the U.S. It isn't the pipeline nor its construction that is really at issue in regards to the environment. It is oil sands.
Oil sand, as the name suggests, is oily (really bituminous) sand. Like its stony shale cousin, only recently has the technology made it profitable to try and extract oil from. The extraction of it is more akin to strip-mining with pits and tailings, than it is to an oil well. Also, it burns with higher carbon emissions than lighter crude oil, but much less than those given off by burning coal. Environmentalists real concern is that the pipeline will give easier access to Alberta's oil sands reserves and expand its extraction.
Two things about this: 1) Canada has been expanding the oil sands extraction regardless of access to the pipeline. That has been driven by the high price of oil and better and better technology. With the oil price plummeting, extraction may not increase, but you can bet, at some point, that oil is going to come out of that ground. 2) Currently those gulf coast refineries already refine oil from oil sands, only that oil comes from Venezuela. Venezuela is one of the largest exporters of crude oil in the world. Their government is also a repressive, socialist one that has consistently labeled capitalism and the U.S. specifically as its great enemy. The U.S. imports about 300 million barrels of crude oil annually from Venezuela. Even with today's price, that's $15 billion U.S. dollars flowing to Venezuela annually. Why would we want that money going to Venezuela instead of Canada?
Finally, as I said before, that oil is going to come out of the ground in Alberta one way or another. They are still expanding their operations up there. How does that oil get to the refinery now?, you might ask. Because it IS still going to refineries. The answer is by trucks and trains. Go ahead and Google "train derailments". Go ahead and Google "Lac-Mégantic". Tell me that moving that oil by train is somehow safer than by pipeline. I don't even need to start on truck accidents. We had one here just north of Brighton, carrying diesel rather than crude, that closed the interstate yesterday. What emits more carbon into the air, pumping oil through a pipe or moving it by truck or train?
This is federal government bullshit on both sides. Okay there's some job impact but not significant enough to say that the pipeline is definitely in the national interest. There is some environmental impact but not enough to say it isn't in the national interest. This issue is simply a political card that the two sides are wielding against each other. I, like most other Americans according to polls, believe the pipeline should be built. Yes, we have low gas prices now, but the market will adjust. When prices go back up, we'll be bemoaning the fact that Alberta is sitting on a ton of crude they can't move fast enough. However, whether it makes sense or not, let's stop with the bullshit coming out of Washington.
First, let's get one thing right out of the way: the Republican argument that it will create 42,000 jobs. That's the figure thrown out there all the time by those on the right. It isn't a made-up one, but the report they are citing says that money spent on the the pipeline would help sustain 42,000 jobs. In the short-term it would create about 4000 construction jobs. Other jobs would be created both directly and indirectly by the construction, but not 42,000. Some of those jobs involved actually already exist, are filled, and are being paid today. So, while I'm sure that while locally it will help economies where it is being built, the construction isn't really going to have a big impact on the national job market. That was just a nice story for Republicans to throw out there when unemployment was so high.
I certainly wouldn't dispute that there are environmental issues at play with the construction of Keystone XL. However, assessments of its impact have been going on for five years now. The government itself published its "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" this time last year. Note the terms Final and Supplemental. It's supplemental because the government wasn't happy with the assessment created by a third-party that they allowed the owner of the pipeline to commission, which said that no significant environmental impact would occur. Guess what the government's independent assessment stated. That's right, that the pipeline and construction of the pipeline would have no significant environmental impact. Well, there was money well-spent. And how can the president insist that more study is needed when they've been holding on to the "Final" impact assessment for a year now?
In fact, Obama himself fast-tracked the construction of phase 3 of the pipeline in 2012. (The XL extension is phase 4). He made a big proclamation to the people of Oklahoma how he was going to cut through the bureaucratic red tape to get that phase built. We already have hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline criss-crossing the U.S. It isn't the pipeline nor its construction that is really at issue in regards to the environment. It is oil sands.
Oil sand, as the name suggests, is oily (really bituminous) sand. Like its stony shale cousin, only recently has the technology made it profitable to try and extract oil from. The extraction of it is more akin to strip-mining with pits and tailings, than it is to an oil well. Also, it burns with higher carbon emissions than lighter crude oil, but much less than those given off by burning coal. Environmentalists real concern is that the pipeline will give easier access to Alberta's oil sands reserves and expand its extraction.
Two things about this: 1) Canada has been expanding the oil sands extraction regardless of access to the pipeline. That has been driven by the high price of oil and better and better technology. With the oil price plummeting, extraction may not increase, but you can bet, at some point, that oil is going to come out of that ground. 2) Currently those gulf coast refineries already refine oil from oil sands, only that oil comes from Venezuela. Venezuela is one of the largest exporters of crude oil in the world. Their government is also a repressive, socialist one that has consistently labeled capitalism and the U.S. specifically as its great enemy. The U.S. imports about 300 million barrels of crude oil annually from Venezuela. Even with today's price, that's $15 billion U.S. dollars flowing to Venezuela annually. Why would we want that money going to Venezuela instead of Canada?
Finally, as I said before, that oil is going to come out of the ground in Alberta one way or another. They are still expanding their operations up there. How does that oil get to the refinery now?, you might ask. Because it IS still going to refineries. The answer is by trucks and trains. Go ahead and Google "train derailments". Go ahead and Google "Lac-Mégantic". Tell me that moving that oil by train is somehow safer than by pipeline. I don't even need to start on truck accidents. We had one here just north of Brighton, carrying diesel rather than crude, that closed the interstate yesterday. What emits more carbon into the air, pumping oil through a pipe or moving it by truck or train?
This is federal government bullshit on both sides. Okay there's some job impact but not significant enough to say that the pipeline is definitely in the national interest. There is some environmental impact but not enough to say it isn't in the national interest. This issue is simply a political card that the two sides are wielding against each other. I, like most other Americans according to polls, believe the pipeline should be built. Yes, we have low gas prices now, but the market will adjust. When prices go back up, we'll be bemoaning the fact that Alberta is sitting on a ton of crude they can't move fast enough. However, whether it makes sense or not, let's stop with the bullshit coming out of Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment