Over the past two weeks or so, several hundred protesters assembled outside the White House to oppose the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is designed to transport bitumen produced from oil sands in Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast. During the protest, actor Daryl Hannah, climate scientist James Hansen, and author and activist Bill McKibben were among some 1,200 people who were arrested.
The protesters are hoping that President Obama will block the $7 billion pipeline. Their rationale: The pipeline will result in major increases in carbon-dioxide emissions, and therefore it must be stopped or catastrophic climate change will ensue. Protest as they might, a State Department report found that the pipeline will not have a major environmental impact.
Advertisement
Here are ten reasons why the Keystone pipeline will be built.
1. Canada’s oil production is rising, Mexico’s is falling. For many years, the U.S. has relied most heavily on crude imports from Mexico and Canada. Over the past ten years, Canadian crude production has risen by 600,000 barrels per day while Mexico’s has fallen by about that same amount. I’d rather have a reliable, long-term supply of crude from Canada than rely on overseas suppliers, whether they are part of OPEC or not. How long can we rely on the Canadian oil sands? Probably for decades. The resources there are estimated at over 100 billion barrels.
2. U.S. oil production is rising, but we will still need to import oil, and lots of it. Thanks to the shale revolution, domestic oil production could rise by as much as 2 million barrels per day over the next few years. That’s great news. But that increased production will not cover all of America’s needs. The more oil we can get from North America, the better.
3. Some of the oil moving through the Keystone XL will likely be exported, but that’s no reason to stop it. Critics of the pipeline, including Oil Change International, say that much of the oil in the line will “never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.” That may be true. But U.S. oil exports are not new. American refineries are now exporting about 2.3 million barrels of refined products per day. Why? U.S. refiners are among the best in the world. They are importing lots of lower-grade crude oil and turning it into diesel and other fuels the world demands. Indeed, over the past six years, U.S. oil exports have more than doubled.
4. The pipeline will help America’s balance of trade. Refining is manufacturing. The U.S. is importing unfinished goods (in the form of Canadian crude), finishing them, and exporting them. That’s a good thing.
5. U.S. oil demand may be relatively flat, but it’s not going away. Opponents of the pipeline claim that there’s no need to build the Keystone XL, because U.S. oil demand is sluggish. That’s true, but the U.S. will continue to need lots of oil for decades to come. Here’s the latest prediction from EIA: “U.S. consumption of liquid fuels, including both fossil fuels and biofuels, rises from about 18.8 million barrels per day in 2009 to 21.9 million barrels per day in 2035.”
6. Like it or not, oil is here to stay. U.S. oil consumption — as a percentage of its total primary energy consumption — now stands at about 37 percent. That’s the exact same percentage as in 1949. Given the amount of money that has been spent over the past six decades on reducing our dependence on oil, the hard fact is that petroleum is a miraculous substance. Nothing else comes close to oil when it comes to energy density, ease of handling, flexibility, convenience, cost, or scale.
7. We should be getting as much oil as we can from as close to home as we can. But we can no longer rely on Mexico. Pemex, the country’s national oil company, is not investing enough money in new drilling projects even though its most important field, Cantarell, is declining rapidly. Nor can Pemex count on getting more money from the Mexican government, which is spending heavily on its war against the drug cartels. Indeed, Mexico may already be a failed state. The cartels are under siege by the federal police and federal soldiers, but the slaughter just a few weeks ago of more than 50 people at a casino in Monterey shows that the narcos are still running wild. Canada, meanwhile, has an ultra-stable government. And given its enormous oil deposits, it’s apparent that Canada can be an essential player in America’s effort to secure reliable energy supplies.
Enjoy reading a sensible article about the energy issues. Robert could have replaced the word oil with natural gas or replaced the issue of the Keystone pipeline with opening up drilling in the gulf, Alaska, continental shelf, or shale deposits and written the same article. In fact just reprint this article in a few months when for some reason, the gulf moratorium will come back into vogue in the media.
If the numbers are correct, we should probably build two of them. The numbers show that the oil sands could yield ALL of our fuel requirements for 13-14 years!
Which Middle East despot will be most harmed by this pipeline? remember, Obama received a lot of Middle East donations in his last campaign (undoubtedly from all the American citizens living in Iran!). If he needs money, he might approve it and then regulate it into submission.
Perhaps instead of us sending money to South America for them to do deep water drilling in the gulf, we should be helping Mexico drill more wells. This would free up more of their domestic spending for fighting the narcos. Do we have a pipeline with Mexico or are the distances to short?
P.S. If we are using the petroleum anyway, pipelines actually decrease emissions. No trucks or trains used to transport the oil.
Obama will hate to do it, but he will OK the pipeline. Because it is jobs, jobs, and jobs. It is also for relations with Canada. If he denies it, how will the ads look if the pipeline goes to the west coast so tankers can pass the Puget Sound to China! Each ship will be a sign of exported jobs and expensive gas.
Half-right. He cannot afford to officially stop the pipeline, so he will OK it, BUT the Justice Dept and EPA will hang the entire project with red tape, lawsuits, and injunctions and such to the point where the investors will eventually pull out and the project will be scrapped. Just an amaazing coincidence that all of those agencies are run by Obama appointees, honest. Nothing to see here, move along.
If the US gradually switches to clean,safe,reliable nuclear power,we could phase out those coal-fired generators and dangerous coal mines. But we still need some coal mining,for steel production.
All our energy sector (and the entire US economy)needs is for Comrade Obama and his regulators to get out of the way.
There are two major pipelines proposed out of my home here in Alberta, Canada. The Gateway pipeline to the west coast (and to pacific markets) and the Keystone pipeline to refineries in Texas.
Alberta is on the move. Eventually, I think it is likely both will be built.
If the Keystone pipeline is blocked, it is an economic certainty that we will fast track the Gateway pipeline. There is thus no long term environmental benefit in blocking the Keystone pipeline. The question is whether it is America benefits or Asia that most directly benefits.
Anyone opposing this pipeline is a total hypocrite if he or she owns a car. If you so casually put your fellow citizens behind the eight-ball and increase OPEC's stranglehold ... then take the bus!
I bike year round, but I think it is ok to not want to destroy Alberta wilderness and expose America to oil leaks in farm land and large underground water supplies and still drive a bit. What would be wrong is to care and not do anything.
What is wrong is to "care", but not care enough to investigate your suppositions. Pipelines are safe, and Alberta's wilderness is a helluva lot bigger than that mud puddle in Fort MacMurray.
Alberta's wilderness isn't going to be destroyed. (Regardless, that's their decision to make, not yours.)
Regardless, even if this pipeline were to be stopped, it wouldn't stop the development of the fields. They will just sell the oil to someone else. (And create more CO2 in the process, since the oil will have to transported further to reach market.)
MarkW,
Exactly right, it is our choice, not yours. That said, the direct environmental damage is probably less than would be involved in building a highway. The catastrophic damage we're being warned about is none other than global warming, a phenomenon which most Albertans look forward to with gleeful anticipation.
And yes, we believe it is real. It's just another reason for us to work harder at what we do.
We might want to compare the CO2 footprint of the pipeline project to that of Obama's latest midwest sojurn with the helicopters 747, cargo planes for the buses, the buses, and the entourage that goes with him.
Probably a tie.
The facts speak for themselves. It is obvious to any balanced person that we desperately need more oil. Hopefully, when Liberals are defeated in 2012, we will be able to tap what we have. Perhaps we can even overturn decades of bans on drilling on our coasts and all the other road blocks to domestic production that we have come accept as normal. They are an extravegence not possible to sustain in a rapidly declining country. We can no longer afford not to. And the mix must include the most unthinkable source of all: nuclear power. We have come to a point of economic collapse that endangers the peace and stability of the whole world and that means we cannot hold off on nuclear power plants, even though they do produce nuclear waste that will outlive us by thousands of years and can be used by rogue states or terrorists. Yucca Mountain get ready! The time has come to move in the direction of energy independence and I pray we can make it happen this time.
Mr Bryce,
You're perpetuating the energy myth by comparing coal to oil. Burning carbon, regardless of source generates the exact same amounot of CO2. Carbon or hydrocarbon plus oxygen --> carbon dioxide plus water. Some will generate more heat than others, but the mass of co2 is the same.
"Carbon or hydrocarbon plus oxygen --> carbon dioxide plus water. Some will generate more heat than others, but the mass of co2 is the same."
That is inaccurate. Sources with a higher H/C ratio will generate less CO2 per BTU of energy produced. In laymen's terms, that's because part of the energy is being derived from the hydrogen component and converted into water. The higher the carbon fraction, the more of the energy that is ultimately converted to carbon dioxide.
In other words, producing a BTU of energy from natural gas produces far less CO2 than producing a BTU from coal.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration is moving forward with plans (and against the recommendations of a Federal Gov committee)to close Yucca Mountain.
Follow
