The Keystone XL Pipeline, Boom or Bust?

Update: The Keystone XL Pipeline proposal was blocked by one solitary vote in the Senate on November 18, 2014. The issue may be gone but, not forgotten, at least for very long. The Republicans immediately let it be known that they will be bringing the issue to the forefront again, after the first of the year 2015, when the Republicans will hold the majority in the Senate.

You will be hearing a lot in the coming week about the Keystone XL pipeline. You will be told about all the jobs the pipeline will create which will mean a lot to our country with so many unemployed citizens. You will hear that it is a $7B project that will have little effect on the environment. You will hear that the Keystone XL pipeline can increase our energy independence and empower us in the Mideast. So, you are no doubt asking yourself, "Why is there is any discussion?" It's all practically a 'unicorns and rainbows' reality, right?

To begin with, the Keystone XL pipeline proposal is for an oil pipeline that would run from the Alberta tar-sands fields through Montana, South Dakota and into Steele City, Nebraska where it will tie into the existing Keystone pipeline. It will transport bitumen and liquified natural gas to refineries in Texas. The pipeline, itself, will be built by the TransCanada Corporation.

As for the 'employment' facts, you will hear that the pipeline will create anywhere from 2,500 to 20,000 jobs. In reality, that number is between 2,500-4,650 jobs (depending how much of the steel production is outsourced to China, Canada or India). Of course, after two years of construction, the job count will fall to 20-35 full-time employment positions. Then there is Cornell's Global Labor Institute, a very reputable entity, that claims the Keystone XL pipeline could actually kill more jobs than it creates because of things like pipeline spills and additional fuel costs in the Midwest. They also found that the construction labor force would likely be brought in from elsewhere and will not use local unemployed laborers from the states involved.

The pipeline IS a $7Billion project, however, only $3Billion to $4Billion of that will be coming to the U.S. The outsourced steel production will be the driving force in that fact. Additionally, the 'facts' about the Keystone XL pipeline reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is, shall we say, a 'pipe dream'? The Chinese and Chinese corporations have invested heavily in these tar-sands fields. They are more than likely to increase investing in the fields rather than divesting themselves of this commodity. Additionally, the oil from the pipeline will be refined in Port Arthur, Texas where the refinery is 70% owned by the state-owned oil refinery of Saudi Arabia. At best, we could say the Keystone XL Pipeline is a GLOBAL project and not one that will prove to be very beneficial to the U.S. Also to be considerred is the fact that U.S. domestic oil drilling and refining production is up 70%, profiting largely American companies thus far under the Obama administration. Just how much oil do we need?

Environmentally, the risks are like something out of a Wes Craven or M. Night Shyamalan movie. Michigan experienced, first-hand, in 2010 what a bitumen oil spill can do for your town. That year 840,000 gallons of the stuff leaked into the Kalamazoo River. So far, with clean-up continuing, the spill has cost over $1Billion. Who can forget the nightly news film footage of bitumen oil running through the streets of tiny town of Mayflower, AR when 210,000 gallons of the stuff spilled causing respiratory problems, nausea and headaches for the people living there? Is it worth the risk when the pipeline will "pass over the Ogallala Aquifer, the lifeblood of Great Plains agriculture,” where the water table is close to the surface. A major leak could poison the water supply of large swaths of the Midwest that add up to one quarter of the nation’s farmland." "The pipeline also has environmental consequences on a larger scale. The pipeline would encourage accelerated extraction of Canada’s tar sands, which have greenhouse gas emissions 81 percent greater than those of conventional oil. By most measures, it is the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet. James Hansen, formerly of NASA, claimed in a 2012 op-ed that the tar sands contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If true, its exploitation along with our continued use of fossil fuels at present levels would bring carbon concentration in the atmosphere above the 500 parts per million threshold often discussed by climatologists as the point of no return. That would create an irreversible cycle wherein the climate is beyond our control. Hansen describes it as “game over for the environment.” Republicans worry about the debt their children may be left with, I worry about the earth my children and grandchildren may be left with considering the continued, greed-filled, rape of our Earth.

Now, you may find yourself wondering 'why' is there any debate about this 'behemoth of evil' and the answer is simple, "Follow the money." 'Deep Throat' uttered that phrase to Woodward and Bernstein as they worked to uncover the Watergate scandal.

To be continued...

#environmentpipeline #oilspill #economy