Skip to comments.Keystone XL pipeline proposal causes U.S. media clash
Posted on 04/04/2011 7:38:07 AM PDT by thackney
When it comes to choosing sides in the debate over TransCanadas proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the American media seems every bit as divided as U.S. members of Congress and the Obama administration.
In its lead editorial on Sunday, the New York Times urged President Barack Obama to reject construction of the 3,200-kilometres pipeline from Alberta to Texas because the project is not only environmentally risky, it is unnecessary.
The Times editorialists took a sharply different view of Calgary-based TransCanadas Keystone XL project than one of its major news competitors the Washington Post did when it weighed in on the pipeline following Prime Minister Stephen Harpers visit to the White House in February.
The Post said Obama should say yes to this pipeline if it clears the environmental hurdles.
Both newspapers denounced oilsands crude itself. The Post called it nasty, while the Times has adopted the pejorative tarsands, the term favoured by environmental opponents.
But while the Post said the pipeline could be justified, the Times said cited a Department of Energy study that found existing pipelines have ample capacity to handle increased Canadian oil imports to the U.S.
The Times, which has the nations third largest circulation and has outsized influence among Washington policy-makers, argued the pipelines construction would do little to ease rising U.S. gasoline prices.
Moving ahead (with Keystone XL) would be a huge error, the Times said.
Moreover, the newspaper denounced the destruction of forests in northern Albertas oilsands region. And it said the environmental threat posed by the pipeline is enormous not only in Canada but in the United States, where Keystone XL would cross a major groundwater aquifer along its proposed Great Plains route.
The newspaper cited the spill in Michigan last summer of 800,000 gallons of oilsands crude from a pipeline operated by Calgary-based Enbridge.
The Keystone XL would cut diagonally across Montana and the Nebraska Sand Hills a delicate region of porous, sandy soils to northern Kansas before heading south to the Gulf, the editorial said.
It would also cross the Ogallala Aquifer, a shallow underground reservoir of enormous importance for agriculture that also provides drinking water for two million people. A pipeline leaking diluted bitumen into groundwater could have disastrous consequences.
The Times offered its opinion following a week of lively debate in the U.S. capital over the projects future. On Wednesday, Obama singled out Canada as a steady and stable and reliable supplier of oil to the U.S. at a time when his administration announced plans to cut imports of foreign oil by one third over the next decade.
Republicans in Congress, however, held hearings later in the week accusing Obama of delaying approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The State Department last month announced it would conduct a supplemental environmental impact study of Keystone XL to address concerns about pipeline safety and greenhouse gas emissions produced in the production of oilsands crude.
The State Department has the authority to approve or reject Keystone XL because it would cross an international boundary. The pipeline would run from Hardisty, Alta. to U.S. refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Canada is the largest supplier of foreign oil to the U.S., providing about 23 per cent of Americas imports.
It does not need any subsidies or tax breaks. But neither does it need political roadblocks. This expands our ability to move Bakken Oil as well as Candian Oil to refineries than today use a lot of oil imported from overseas.
In June 2010 TransCanada commenced commercial operation of the first phase of the Keystone Pipeline System. Keystone's first phase was highlighted by the conversion of natural gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline and construction of an innovative bullet line that brings the crude oil non-stop from Canada to market hubs in the U.S. Midwest.
Keystone Cushing (Phase II), an extension of the Keystone Pipeline from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma went into service in February 2011. The 36-inch pipeline connects to storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.
The proposed Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project is an approximate 2,673-kilometre (1,661-mile), 36-inch crude oil pipeline that would begin at Hardisty, Alberta and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. It would incorporate a portion of the Keystone Pipeline (Phase II) through Nebraska and Kansas to serve markets at Cushing, Oklahoma before continuing through Oklahoma to a delivery point near existing terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.
Very detailed map showing pumpstation location and individual counties.
Absolutely agree. This is an other example of liberal political demagoguery to deprive Americans of Energy Security.
The pipeline is cokmpartmented, monitored, and any leakage would be immediately identified and isolated. There is more risk to the Ogalala Aquifer from rusty tanks at an abandoned gas station than from this modern pipeline.
See the report at this website for actual information and then contact your representatives to support Keystone XL:
At the same time, this pipeline would help reduce imports from overseas. It is to reach Gulf Coast Refineries where much imported is brought in.
The Science morons both in the press and in the green movement are working on their usual tactic to delay, obstruct, and raise the price of everything energy-related.
If more gas-powered generation is possible, it can't help but ease the demand for oil.
The usual idiots.
Natural Gas generation for electrical power? That won't really effect oil demand as we use almost no oil for electrical power. The amount we do use is mostly refinery left-overs like petroleum coke or residual oil that already has the gasoline, diesel or the like removed.
Much cheaper to build new refinery in the north and ship product by train. End of problem, will communicate same to my representative.
No, it isn't. Especially considering the Alaskan Rail System doesn't connect to the lower 48, except by barge.
One of the many problems with that, is all the byproducts from the refining of crude oil, which also requires shipping products like petroleum coke, residual oil. chemical feed stocks, etc. There is a real reason many chemical plants are near refineries.
The cost of operating a refinery in that cold environment is also more expensive. The cost of shipping by rail, if the rail existed, is more expensive as well.
Dang it, I got my threads mixed up. I was on an Alaskan thread and thought you were too.
Some of the same still applies, but obviously the rail system is still in place. It is more expensive and the multiple other products and by products would have to be moved as well. It is not just gasoline and diesel.
Wrong, the tax payer is already having to pay to move the corn liquor, ethanol, so they would be close to each other, the last domestic shortages, and waiting lines, was caused by refineries in Texas. Time to move some of the eggs out of the same basket.