Key Facts on Keystone XL

Energy Security: Tar Sand will not Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.
  • Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin America. Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.
  • Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security. U.S. demand for oil has been declining since 2007.  New fuel-efficiency standards mean that this trend will continue once the economy gets back on track. In fact, the Energy Deptartment report on KeystoneXL found that decreasing demand through fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports with or without the pipeline.
More info: Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers
  • By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
  • TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”
  • Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
  • According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.
More information: Jobs: TransCanada’s jobs projections are vastly inflated.
  • In 2008, TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department indicated “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline.
  • Jobs estimates above those listed in its application draw from a 2011 report commissioned by TransCanada that estimates 20,000 “person-years” of employment based on a non-public forecast model using undisclosed inputs provided by TransCanada.
  • According to TransCanada’s own data, just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor.
  • Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) both oppose the pipeline. Their August 2011 statement: “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.”
More Information: Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.
  • The U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration has not yet conducted an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline, despite unique safety concerns posed by its more corrosive properties.
  • TransCanada predicted that the Keystone I pipeline would see one spill in 7 years. In fact, there have been 12 spills in 1 year. The company was ordered to dig up 10 sections of pipe after government-ordered tests indicated that defective steel may have been used. KeystoneXL will use steel from the same Indian manufacturer.
  • Keystone XL will cross through America’s agricultural heartland, the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers, the Ogallala aquifer, sage grouse habitat, walleye fisheries and more.
  • The agency was not adequately accounting for threats to wildlife, increased pollution in distressed communities where the crude may be refined, or increases in carbon emissions that would exacerbate climate change, and a variety of other issues.
More Information Climate Change: Keystone XL is the fuse to North America’s biggest carbon bomb.
  • In a study funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a group of retired four-star generals and admirals concluded that climate change, if not addressed, will be the greatest threat to national security.
  • The State Department Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the pipeline. Extraction and refinement of oil sands are more GHG-intensive compared to conventional oil. The EIS estimates that the additional annual GHG emissions from the proposed pipeline could range from an additional “12-23 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent… (roughly the equivalent of annual emissions from 2 to 4 coal-fired power plants)” over conventional crude oil from the Middle East. [8] The EPA believes that the methodology used by the State Department is inaccurate and could underestimate GHG emissions by as much as 20 percent.[9] Given that the expected lifetime of the Keystone XL pipeline is fifty years, the EPA notes that the project could yield an extra 1.15 billion tons of GHGs using the quantitative estimates in the EIS.[10]
  1. Angejoli says:

    The construction of this pipeline can cause earthquackes or tzunamies in Central America?

  2. MKB says:

    Here’s the question. What makes you think stopping the pipeline will stop the tar sands from being turned into oil and burned for energy?

    As long as there is growing global demand (which there will be for a long long time: http://bit.ly/ib2vzp) the price of Oil will continue to escalate and the tar sands will be exploited, with the resulting emissions and environmental degradation. Except without a pipeline, the Oil will be sent to China via the Canadian west coast, leaving us without access to the energy (for domestic or export) and without political or regulatory influence over how the the process is undertaken. Removing the US from the equation weakens the US, but does nothing in the long term for climate change, energy dependence, or the health of the global political system.

    If my thinking is wrong here, I would love to understand why.

    • URB says:

      That’s an incredibly selfish perspective. There is also the possibility that this information and protest could reach countries like China and create the same reaction. With the power of Social Networking and the availability of resources on this material, any option is possible right now and the world could be changing with us; it wouldn’t be the first time the United States effectively served as a role model.

      • clearsky28 says:

        I don’t understand how you think VaThr’s response is selfish. Just because there were cold, starving children in the world didn’t mean I was selfish when I chose to feed and clothe my child.

        What is selfish about wanting to protect the Ogallala and Carrizo-Wilcox aquifers from the threat of a spill from that toxic sludge? The Ogallala provides fresh water for 20 million people and the Carrizo-Wilcox 12 million in Texas plus an unknown number of people in Louisiana and Arkansas (couldn’t find totals, only individual towns, parishes & counties).

        What is selfish about wanting to become healthier and making a commitment to kick our addiction to oil? Think of James Hansen’s analogy when he talked about the U.S. being addicted to oil. Canada wants to sell us their dirtiest dope to us (or at the least use us to distribute their dope). If we decide to buy, we are also committed to using it with a dirty needle. If we reject the dirty dope, we are making a commitment to recovery. Ask any addict—recovery isn’t easy—but our country’s health and future is depending on it. The healthier the U.S. becomes the better global leader we become too!

        What is selfish about wanting to take the high road and not participate in this destructive planetary activity? By setting an example we are also sending a message to Canada and the world.

        • am says:

          Read more closely, clearsky28. URB’s post was in response to MKB’s initial suggestion (pardon the paraphrasing): that it is likely the tar sands will be turned into oil with or without this pipeline thus it might be better for the US to benefit from the oil instead of China and other countries.

        • BlondeSexySmart says:

          love that analogy so great

      • Jessan says:

        URB, you are aware that social networking via computers and smart phones is only possible because all of those devices are made from the by-products of oil, right? Ironic, isn’t it?

    • VaThr says:

      Part of what you say may (probably is) be true: but, at least we will save the immediate harm to the health and destruction of people and environment in the US. Also, we will not have participated in the abomination that exploitation of tar sands is. That gives us the cred to press for the rest of the world to get on board and start putting our planet (the only one we’ve got) ahead of money and short term gratification of our excessive ‘wants’.

    • Linda Settle says:

      Read their investment reports and analysts’ reports. They have to get to
      a port and BC port has shoals that prohibit the super tankers. According to the industry, there is an oversupply to midwest Plan is to refine to diesel in Texas and export from there. It is destined only to lowest bidder for diesel, not necessarily US.
      Will take tremendous amount of water to refine this toxic stuff and you may have noticed Texas is on fire, kinda bad drought there.
      Too many British Columbians against any more coming there and have them tied up in court.
      They really need to come through the US and don’t care what kind
      of destruction is left in US and Canada when the sands are depleted. Stop the pipeline – Free up capital for renewable energy.

      • mkb says:

        Linda. Thank you. That’s a great response. Hadn’t realized in particular that there were depth issues with the BC ports. What do you make of articles like this: http://onforb.es/mYFxF6 ? Do you think that the China menace is really just a scare tactic (i.e., there is no truth to it)? Would love to see any links to the analyst/investment reports you mentioned above.

      • Anonymous says:

        I was in the doctor’s office the other day and picked up a National Geographic Mag. The article that caught my attention was on the pipeline to British Columbia. It seems as though two pipelines are necessary, one to take chemicals to the Tar Sands to liquify it enough to move through the pipeline and a second pipeline for the oil to actually flow to British Columbia.

        Something I’ve learned from the fracking issue is that when a company approaches you for permission to survey your land for a pipeline and you give it, THAT is regarded as implied consent for them to put the pipeline through your land. Think carefully people..

        • Jojothom says:

          Our 160 acre farmland is in the path of this pipeline. We told them we did not want their money or their pipeline on our property. The very first person that came to our home told us that Trans Canada would not hesitate to use imminent domain. Amazing that a foreign company could do that.

          My husband flew Hueys in Vietnam and Chinooks in Iraq because his country told him to. What’s wrong with this picture?

          • Kcabral1 says:

            Eminent domain is part of a legal theory to ensure that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. With the concept of private property here in the U.S., there has to be some legal way to ensure that roads, highways, sidewalks, right-of-ways, electrical transmission lines, et al, all have a means of getting created without one private land owner stopping the project. Our Supreme Court has issued numerous opinions on this subject. Kelo vs The City of New London is the latest court case on eminent domain. I am sorry you felt threatened, but we need to have ways of moving commerce throughout this country or we will surely be doomed.

          • 1eyeopen says:

            Eminent domain was not meant to be used to create a profit for corporation. It was meant to address the needs of a community to put up structures like schools. To extend this to enable further profits is obscene. The right to own property is a tenent of the US constitution. Take for example the case in Long Branch, NJ where families who have small homes on the beachfront for generations were being forced to give up their homes to developers to build new condos. Was this the right use of Eminent Domain? I don’t think so. It is in my view unconstitutional, but not according the the US Supreme Court. I guess if they can intercede in a state election(Florida) and tell them to stop counting votes, they can also take your home away just to turn a profit. God help us all.

          • 1eyeopen says:

            What’s wrong is “We the people” do not run this country. “We the corporation” do run the country. Sad but true. It’s really the essence of what the Occupy movement is all about. We need to put sanity into captialism and have the public good be part of the equation, not just massive profits and executive compensation.

    • Harold Hensel says:

      The tar sand pipeline is a good place to start taking a stand. This would only be a battle in the war. It may be the most critical battle at this point, however. The alternative is to roll over and play dead and never challenge the polluters.

    • Anonymous says:

      You are right there are two separate issues here: 1) the exploitation of the tar sands and 2) the construction of the pipeline. I think we can take it as given that the tar sands will be exploited eventually; they are already economically viable and will become more valuable as time drags on, demand for oil increases and supply declines. With oil at $200, $300 or $400 a barrel, we are going to see this oil extracted. That is unfortunate, since relatively speaking, in carbon terms it is expensive to extract.
      So, given that at some point the future, this sludge is going to be transported somehow from the Canadian interior to the coast, or the US interior. It is therefore in everyones interest to make sure that this is done in the safest and most efficient way possible. As oil becomes more expensive, it will be easier and make more economic sense to have the safest and securest pipeline available. This should be where the debate should be happening. I know this is not an idealistic point of view, but it is up to you to ddecide if it is out and out defeatist, or merely pragmatic.

      • Anonymous says:

        The fishy thing is why such a long pipeline to the Texas coast. Some reasoned it’s mainly meant for export. If so, then it won’t help our oil supply 1 bit but yet still add to carbon emissions. Aren’t there plan Bs in refining this oil with shorter, safer pipelines? Or is it mainly bcos there are other dealings between TransCanada & Texas oil companies?

      • darren kazemi says:

        Do you really think its makes economical (or common) sense to invest so heavily in a pipeline whose expected life-time is only fifty years and has the potential for total environmental destruction than to reallocate those funds to a more viable, smart energy-grid plan to last basically indefinitely? The only way to guarantee a safe pipeline by a mega-corporation whose interests are definitely not in line with yours or mine is to stop it dead in its tracks — maybe we need to be safeguarding against those all too common breach of oaths than reason with those who shed crocodile tears and offer a glimmer false hope.

    • Freed358 says:

      It is my understanding that this pipeline is the only possible route for
      tar sands oil. It cannot go west across Canada for various reasons, either legal
      or geographic.

  3. Harold Hensel says:

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Oil_sands_development

    “The primary global impact of oil sands production comes through the release of greenhouse gases created when about 800 million cubic feet of natural gas (approximately 10% of Canada’s total natural gas consumption) is burned daily to create heat for extraction and upgrading, says Stringham. In the 2006 report The Canadian Oil Sands in the Context of the Global Energy Demand, Eddy Isaacs, director of the Alberta Energy Research Institute, wrote that 176 cubic meters of natural gas are required to liquefy, extract, and purify each cubic meter of bitumen produced.

    “Even under government predictions, oil sands emissions will triple by 2020. This is inconsistent with meaningful action on climate change. [Oil] sands . . . are almost single-handedly taking us in the opposite direction of [the Kyoto Protocol].”

  4. J. Taggart says:

    There is no need to pipeline the “tar sands ” crude to the gulf coast except , to export it as finished product. Pehaps we should look at this idea, if we are bound and determined to receive this crude. Build a refinery(s) at the site of the abandoned A.F.base in N.E. Montana ( hows that for a secure location?), then build out and hook up to the yellowstone pipeline ( a finished prod-
    uct line at Billings,Mt. Other options await at it’s termination in Spokane, Wa.,( like run a line to Oregon which has no pipeline.

    • John Eager says:

      Why not utilize existing (or build new) refineries in the northern US or Canada to process the oil? The cost of the new pipeline seems an expensive choice in dollars and risks to the environment. Also, consider where the oil ultimately will go from Texas and who stands to benefit the most from the XL plan.

  5. Richg1124 says:

    Big Oil in the USA does not own the Canadian tar sands and thus they wil be less able to manipulate and hike gasoline prices every time there is a political hiccup in the Middle east. Exxon Modil and Shell have had their way with pricing and when the Oil from Canada hits their market, their control on pricing suddenly fades.They are completely behind the campaign to stop the Keystone pipeline. How is it possible to believe that a steady, reliable source of oil from a friendly politically stable neighbour is going to cause an increase in gasoline prices when you’ve seen nothing but price hikes over the past 5 years. It costs more to extract Tar sand oil but at current prices as jacked up by the Big oil companies using unfriendly sources, it has become economically feasible. besides, what good has come from the billions of dollars paid daily to Arab oil Sheiks who simply squander it on palaces, silver plated cars and ski hills in a tropical desert. Who do you think is finacing all the huge mosques being built in the USA?

    Homer Salwalski

    • Anonymous says:

      Homer-

      Do you have any evidence at all for any of these claims, anywhere? As in: studies by credentialed sources, news reports, etc. – like the evidence cited above?

    • clearsky28 says:

      FYI: Shell is heavily invested in TransCanada and the Saudis are heavily invested a refinery in Texas. Sorry, too disorganized to be able to put my hands on the source(s)–papers everywhere!

  6. clearsky28 says:

    When I click on the link to get the study funded by the Rockefeller Foundation by the group of retired four-star generals and admirals I get the message ‘This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed.’

    I spent hours googling and looking around the Rockefeller Foundation site. I found one study that came out in June 2011, “An Ounce of Prevention: Preparing for the Impact of a Changing Climate on US Humanitarian and Disaster Response.” Although it said that “the US government and humanitarian organizations could face a staggering challenge with significant implications for international stability and national security in the coming years,” the authors of the study are not 4-star generals and admirals; nor is there any mention of them in the acknowledgment section.

    Does anyone know what the name of the study is and how to access it? I’m dealing with deniers who want to see primary sources. Normally, I write them off, but this is too important of an issue. I just became a grandmother and for my granddaughter’s sake, I feel the need to educate as many people as possible about this issue—and if that means producing the “study”—I will. Thanks!

    • RW.02139 says:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-planets-future-climate-change-will-cause-civilisation-to-collapse-1742759.html

      “Backed by a diverse range of leading organisations such as Unesco, the World Bank, the US army and the Rockefeller Foundation, the 2009 State of the Future report runs to 6,700 pages and draws on contributions from 2,700 experts around the globe. Its findings are described by Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the UN, as providing “invaluable insights into the future for the United Nations, its member states, and civil society”.
      A 2009 article in the Independent summarizes this article –

      • Addb says:

        Wow, the UN, World Bank, Rockefeller Foundation? These are among the the prolific and powerful sources of power-elite disinformation on the planet. Their aim is to preserve power and wealth for the elite. Fear is their favorite weapon. Unfortunately, it works every time on the unsuspecting.

      • Jessan says:

        Everyone of the “foundations” mentioned is paid for their reports. How can they possibly report the “facts” if they’re being paid by lobbyists and environmental groups who are only interesting in promoting their agenda as opposed to facts? Money talks people.

    • Katharine says:

      Try “Degrees of Risk: Defining a Risk Management Framework for Climate Security” by Mick Mabey, Jay Gullegh, Bernard Finel, and Katherine Silverthorne. I know Rockefeller was one of the funders. In the intro to the summary, I think it was, they mentioned getting input from all kinds of upper level people. Try that.

    • Freed358 says:

      Or, there is this >>> Google this title

      DoD Takes Aim at Climate Change

      �Climate change is a dire national security issue, as altered weather patterns, including flooding and droughts, will increasingly push countries into humanitarian crises; tropical storms will displace citizens and result in mass migrations and refugees; and scarcity of food and resources will increase the likelihood of violent conflict in regions of the world where radicalism and insurgency are already likely to take hold,� said retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, president of the American Security Project and of public research at CNA (Center for Naval Analysis, a non-profit research organization). �Climate change will also force changes in how we operate our forces around the world, changes that will affect ground operations and logistics as well as operations at sea and in the air.�

  7. Anonymous says:

    the “Climate Change” section above is far too confusing. Can we get that rewritten in plain english?

  8. Quinnjaron says:

    You’ve got a typo in the link in the Energy Security section (i.e. “Energy Deptartment”).

  9. Evan says:

    Greenhouse gas emissions? you guys are so 90’s. The whole GHG Anthro Global warming deal has been totally discredited as a scam, for at lest the last 7 years. Please move yourselves into the next century!

  10. CaptPlanet says:

    the first two links are broken. Nevertheless, thank you very much for posting these key facts. See you all in D.C. this November!

  11. Temp says:

    Oil sands are necessary and they provide tax income into the Canadian economy and provide jobs for canadians. and the oil is tainted in innocent blood unlike middle east oils

  12. Toshamorgan06 says:

    My response is simple….lets change what’s already NOT working and not ADD to the rest of the u.S’s issues…its called a budget, living within your means. so how are they PLANNING on funding this exactly??

  13. CKB says:

    The alternative for Canadian oil companies is that Enbridge will build the Northern Gateway pipeline to a new BC terminal suitable for supertankers. That will provide a direct link for Canadian oil to Asian markets. This will also keep all of the $5 billion pipeline spend in Canada and only require Canadian regulatory approval. There would be little political opposition considering the conservative majority government in Ottawa. Delivering 525,000 barrels of crude per day to a growing Asian market should help oil producers in Canada boost the pricing of their product versus selling it at a discount to the U.S. There is no need for the Keystone XL pipeline.

  14. BEB says:

    Can anyone give me a point-by-point rebuttal to the following, which appears in Wikipedia:
    In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto on September 23, 2011, Joe Oliver, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, sharply criticized opponents of oil sands development and the pipeline, arguing that:

    The total area that has been affected by surface mining represents only 0.1% of Canada’s boreal forest.
    The oil sands account for about 0.1% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.
    Electricity plants powered by coal in the U.S. generate almost 40 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than Canada’s oil sands (the coal-fired electricity plants in the State of Wisconsin alone produce the equivalent of the entire GHG emissions of the oil sands.
    California bitumen is more GHG-intensive than the oil sands.
    Oliver criticized opponents of the pipeline, stating that all of the above facts are ignored by “celebrity protestors.”[43]

    • Steve Gensemer says:

      The comment is probably true but irrelevant. The tar sands are and absolutely humongous reserve of fossil fuel which is right now almost untapped. There is probably more oil in tar sands than even the Saudis could extract. However it is very expensive and very messy to get at. If the price of oil goes high enough (without carbon taxes) then there will be a huge incentive to get at those tar sands and turn Canada into another Saudi Arabia. It would be a terrible, terrible disaster for our planet. We (the whole world, not just the U.S.) are already set to burn all of our oil. If we burn all of our coal, the human race will very possibly be wiped out. If we burn all of these tar sand on top of it, we could turn the Earth into another Venus. Read James Hansen for more on this…

  15. Rich Bartell says:

    There is Not One Good thing about this pipe line, Except for The Greedy Bastards who are pushing for it, Always remember , if a government tells its peons that its a great deal, Know without any doubt that it is pure bullshit, Just look at what the land looks like and smells like, up in Alberta Canada , its the RAPE of our planet, the place we call home, (Mother Earth) and do not overlook the vast amounts of pure water that is wasted in forcing out this dirty toxic oil, and let us Not Forget The Land & Water that this time bomb pipe line crosses over in its quest for profits , at any cost. Wake Up People, ” DEMAND “, —-DEMAND an end to this madness, Do Not Forget,—the other more well known oil spills—-that have destroyed the very land that we should hold sacred, Pure Air, and Water should come Before Profits! Exxon Valdez, — the off shore rigs that shot oil into the Gulf, the list goes on and on, Corporate ( Greed ) Profits before good old Common Sense! –Please Wake Up People, while we still have a planet that can sustain us !

    • Jessan says:

      Rich, The tar sands have made massive improvements in the last few years to containing the harmful by products. For instance, they are adding product to the waste water that solidifies the pond water so that it can no longer potentially seep into water supplies or harm water fowl. They are also drilling to deep water sheds that contain water with sodium levels so high it can’t be used for any life nurturing purpose. They are starting to use this water for the tar sands processes instead of taking water from the Athabasca River. Why not use your voice to encourage and insist upon these improvements?

      • Louis Patyk says:

        What you say might be true. If it is and even if not, tell me please,when this salt water is removed. When the sand is removed from the sand, what happens to it. Where wil it go. Will hundres of thousand acres of land be turned into waste land.
        Remember, at this point, the crude has not been refined. The refining process will produce more waste. Will this be dumped into the Gulf?

      • Jshevsky says:

        I agree with your comments too, all the improvements you talk about must be brought to light to assure the American public that the pipeline will benefit our planet not hurt it more.

      • P F Yancick says:

        Jesson,
        We are having the worst drought in history in the west and you want to use up more of our water for tar sands. Did you graduate from Wondom-Idiot Univeristy ?

        • SLMoore says:

          Water. Water is the point. We already have all the oil we need….we have alternative energy solutions we could pursue….we are spoiled and the politicians are greedy….bringing in more oil will not make prices go down…
          THE MOST IMPORTANT point….we will have tons of oil AND NO WATER. People don’t want to believe we can create drought and famine in this country, and that water is not exhaustable.

      • Julie Nutt says:

        Even with these so called improvements what about the huge carbon footprint…What about spills and pipe damage and leaks…What about the pollution spewed at the refineries…what about the damage to the earth at the sites from which it is extracted…this junk they are digging up is finite and killings us. We need sustainable healthy resources of energy…We are dangerously close to terminating ourselves as a species or a life sustaining planet . This has to STOP>>>>

    • mike says:

      Rich,
      like most of the other ignorant fools jumping on this bandwagon, you need to have your head examined. Alberta is one of the purest places on earth, as opposed to the place you likely come from. If you’d ever been here you would know that.

    • Chizled says:

      Have you been To the Oil sands in Northern Alberta ? I have … They take the environment as a top priority . Canada is one of the top countries in the world for its environmental standards . Take a look at some third worlds actions in terms of environmental damage and regulations . For pollution, toxic contamination and garbarge . Even China for that matter . Canada is not even comparable . You along with everyone reading this is dependant on energy . And until renewable energy is more available and used we need this . Its one of our best options until renewable energy becomes more readily available and used .

    • Julie Nutt says:

      We the US citizens have elected these “government people” so who is really to blame..The people in this country have to start paying attention to who they elect…a lot of people don’t even vote..but they sure complain…I for one , can’t believe the hostility I encounter when I just bring up a political subject..hostility from people who don’t “like politics” or “I don’t care, they do what they want anyway”, or “I’m not voting. What good does it do”…with attitudes like this does anyone really wonder why it’s been so easy for the Koch brother’s and those like them to take over this country? Yes, Please people of the US wake up…You have far more power than you think that is unless it is taken away from you before your brains wake up…

    • Haileybruce says:

      I live in fort mcmurray, alberta, and i would invite you to come and see first hand how our beautiful city does NOT smell bad, and see it’s beauty.

  16. Guest says:

    The sheeple that believe in the GW scam are the most dangerous people in the world.

  17. Chris says:

    It’s cool that none of your links work! I really like that I can easily verify your blatant misrepresentations of facts!

    • This Land is Your Land says:

      Talk about blatant misrepresentation of the facts – I just checked all 4 links and all of them work. Unless this has changed over the past 2 weeks, it is you who are misrepresenting the facts.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Keystone XL really is a bad idea, dangerous for the American midwest, opening too few jobs with too short a work-lifetime. I do not believe that by stopping the XL upgrade, we can have much influence on the really dirty processing that is going on in Alberta. The best we can do is protect our own environment. My own analysis is at LastTechAge.wordpress.com The New York Times yesterday showed that TransCanada is applying Eminent Domain to confiscate property along the path, right now, before Obama makes his decision.
    Charles Armentrout

    • Mike says:

      It is very nice for granola muching celeberties to say No to the pipeline–it is also reality that they have enough money and freedoms that they do not have to worry where they get their oil to power their Escalades. USA needs this oil and it will also provide many jobs and spin-off benefits. If everyone rode a bike then No to the pipeline but that is NOT the case. Grow up and find better means to make the pipeline safer.

      Montgomery is awesome!

      Montgomery triangle is awesome!

      • Anonymous says:

        Let’s try this again. The Keystone pipeline (the basic line that became active in February 2011) already carries the petroleum product to refineries in the US. It is one of maybe 4 or 5 that enter the US from Canada, not counting the line to Vancouver and the one being built to a the Pacific port. XL is an “upgrade” that bypasses the American heartland refineries and is to send its product to refineries on the Gulf coast, and then directly to tankers for sale everywhere *but* in the U.S.

        The problems with XL are (A) it is not about energy security, (B) it is directly over the mid American Ogallala aquifer, (C) it carries a rough slurry of bitumen in an rective fluid base, and (D) it is do this using poorly tested, extra thin walled tube, at extra high pressure.

        Pipelines do leak and enter waterways by devious paths (ref Enbridge & Michigan last year). (D) means it could leak higher than norm, (B) means it could be devastating. To deny XL does not stop the tar sands output into US refineries. This has nothing to do with you getting access to new gasoline sources, but with the big guys getting access to more big money. We should say no to XL. My full analysis at lasttechae.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/keystone-xl-the-balance-sheet/

        Charles Armentrout, LastTechAge.wordpress.com

        • SZ939 says:

          You know, the problem with BULL SHIT Sites like this is that they promote INACCURATE AND ERRONEOUS INFOBLAB AND PRESENT IT AS “FACT” to Poor Misinformed people who then pass the BS along! The ONLY thing flowing in the new XL Pipeline will be Desulfured Crude Oil! The Refineries in Houston, TX have no use for Slurries of Bitumin! If you think about this ASININE STATEMENT, what you are claiming is that the Pipeline will carry coal dust in water suspension! The Fort MacMurray area is being surrounded with Refineries that will De-Sulfur the Oil and send Stabilized Crude Oil down to the US Gulf Coast Refineries. The Crude Oil is going there ANYWAY despite your nonsense posts here, but it was felt that a Pipeline was SAFER than shipping by Tanker Fleets along the California Coastlines to Pipelines already moving Crude to Texas! Additionally, you might want to tell your misguided readers that this Pipeline is Paralleling 5 EXISTING Pipelines, all without any impact on Aquifers in Nebraska! ALso, US Refineries DO NOT EXPORT REFINED PRODUCTS in the manner your useless Site claims! Other garbage sites claim we will export to Latin America, which is so laughable a concept as to make me ROFL! Mexico, Brazil, and Your Marxist Friend Venezuela are the main players in South America!

          Get a BRAIN PEOPLE AND GO DO SOME REAL RESEARCH!

          • Anonymous says:

            The planned terminus of the KeystoneXL pipeline is at refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, which is a Foreign Trade Zone. The primary purpose of a Foreign Trade Zone is to increase the profitability of exporters, who pay no USA taxes in the Zone.

            Thank Texas congressmen for the law that lures more oil businesses (good for Texas) in exchange for a no-tax privilege for the businesses (bad for the rest of us. i.e., federal tax revenue).

  19. Magic Bananas says:

    POTATO.

  20. Zoe says:

    I really want to come!!!!! And I will try to find a way. I am going to college in St.Louis and yet have not found a way to get over there!! Anyone an idea?

  21. Greg says:

    the best thing about the pipeline is oil…which all 7 billion of us hopelessly need…so what can you do?

  22. Brainchild10 says:

    this sounds like an important issue — however it’s the first I’ve heard about it in Robert Redford’s video and email today.

    No one makes it clear – either Redford – or this website, WHAT EXACTLY the Tar Sands XL is, or where it is. No where on this site or in Redford’s plea.

    Can someone please post an explanation – after 15 minutes of searching thru all of the political material here I still don’t know what this is about. If it’s Canadian oil why does the US have a say? Very confusing…

    • Jessan says:

      The keystone pipeline is a proposed line that would run from Northern Canada (Alberta) to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas.
      The big uproar is for two reasons, first, the oil that comes from the Tar Sands in Alberta is a relatively new process in the oil industry and there has been a learning curve which has damaged the environment while extracting it. The numerous companies that are extracting oil from the tar sands are working to change processes and containment of harmful by products. It has been labeled “dirty oil” by environmentalists even though the US’s coal industry causes more damage and harm to the environment every year.
      The second reason is that the pipeline would run through some areas of the US that some think is too environmentally sensitive if a pipe were to leak.
      The bottom line is this, the oil sands will be developed and the offer has been made by Canada to sell the oil to the US. If the US doesn’t want it and the jobs it will create and the lessened dependence it will create on foreign oil (Mid-East in particular). Then Canada will find another buyer.
      You should also know that over 50% of a barrel of oil is used to make everyday products that you and even these protesters use every day. Oil fuels more than your car, it fuels every single industry on the planet.

      • Freed357 says:

        >>>>”It has been labeled “dirty oil” by environmentalists even though the US’s coal industry causes more damage and harm to the environment every year. ” <<<<

        Environmentalists (those who wish to live with clean air, water, etc.) call coal "dirty" also. Because it is.

        Sure, it is a big job. So was fighting the Axis powers. But we can truly move beyond all this fossil based energy with wind, solar, etc..

        I doubt we will do so in time, as we will make deserts of our blessed country. I predict 2 billion premature deaths before we wise up.

        But, like all true Carbonists, you cling to your addictions.

  23. Guitarguy22 says:

    Hey Americans… ask yourself this… you are one of the largest consumers of Energy in the world… where do you think you would get the oil and gas required to meet your consumption needs if it doesn’t come from Canada???
    You can’t produce the amounts from your own reserves in the US so I guess that leaves the Middle East… Libya? Iraq… oh ya, that’s why your last president decided to go into Iraq in the first place wasn’t it… so he could protect the oil interests… It’s easy for all of you to talk about the oil sands negatively but frankly it’s kinda like an alcholic blaming the owner of his favourite liquor store for his problems…

    • Anonymous says:

      There no proof anywhere that Keystone XL will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Please don’t troll.

    • Twelvefootdavis says:

      Please don’t troll…or please don’t offer a different opinion? Keystone XL will replace imports from OPEC of heavy crude, replacing it with Oil Sand extracted diluted bitumen. This is a large percentage of imported oil, but you will still be dependent on OPEC oil.
      Because the heavy oil from OPEC (that will be replaced with oil sands bitumen) is equally or more carbon intensive than oil sands oil, stopping the Keystone XL will have ZERO impact on CO2 reduction.

      I suggest having Americans stop consuming and driving cars. That will eliminate the need for imported heavy crude oil. Until then…you are to blame, not oil companies.

      • Tracylee says:

        surley it is better to stop it and stay neutral rather risk the environment along its route, by stopping it you would also have the added bonus of not adding to the emissions. That can only help .you are right on the fact that we globally not only Americans consume far to many oil/fossil fuels. WE ARE 99%OCCUPY

      • Jakrdy says:

        TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.

        “Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”

      • daronlady620 says:

        You need to research WHY TransCanada wants to route this stuff down here in the first place.

    • Uncorruptable says:

      Your analysis is, with respect, nonsensical. Thats like saying because you have a huge apetite you should just facilitate anyway possible to continue your out of control eating habits even at the expense of your own mortality!

      The solution to america’s energy needs is one thing that needs to be resolved, but continuing on a road of self destruction using a fuel source that is not renewable is absurd to say the least.

    • Guest says:

      Why do people who don’t care about anything but “drill, baby drill” come to sites like this? The problem is we Americans consume WAY too much, we need to stop using so much energy, period. Tar sands production, from “well to wheel” causes about 45% more greenhouse gases than traditional crude oil production. So, is it worth it to you Guitarguy22 to ruin the entire world so you can drive your SUV?

    • Big D says:

      Hey guitarguy, why do you care about what we Americans do? If some of us Americans don’t want your crappy oil then it shouldn’t be a problem. That negative talk about the oil sands has nothing to do with Canada. The real problem is people like you not realizing that we can’t continue doing what we are doing. You shouldn’t want your own country being degraded for the long term for such a short term energy solution. You are in favor of large corporations taking advantage of people like you and destroying your backyard. It is easy for you to promote developing Canadian tar sands when you don’t know any better, don’t worry it isn’t your fault. You’re probably too busy standing at that liquor store

    • Dkress38 says:

      this pipeline oil is destined for Europe, not America…

    • Lgspe says:

      No we do have the necessary energy right here in the USA. All we have to do is to drill for it. When an oil field has stopped producing, you have only removed 1/3 of the total oil in the pool, Then you go to secondary recovery to get the next 1/3 and then the last 1/3 is the last amount of oil, yes it is more expensive but we can get more oil out of old fields if we need to.

  24. Eechaze says:

    Dwindling world energy reserves should be a call to action especially from us the largest consumers. As a matter of urgency there should be two plans to address our huge energy needs. One is short term while the other plan should be a longer term solution. This pipeline should be incorporated in the short term plan that will address needs for say #5 years down the road. Past that we will need to aggressively invest in renewables car batteries etc. Energy independence in the future will result from a multi faceted approach . Invading countries for oil will be medieval and impracticable. The time to act is now

  25. Kyle Christensen says:

    excellent info

  26. Vicks says:

    Two words: Eminent Domain. Look it up……………………..Its a free country?

  27. Aybball says:

    Why are you guys hating on tar sands?

  28. Barabas12 says:

    THIS IS AMERIAC!!! hELL YA WERE FREE YEAH I HATE JEWS

  29. Barabas says:

    BUILD IT BUILD IT. DONT BE SELLFISS. LET IT FLOW TO US. OR INVADE CANADA!!!!!!!!!!

  30. Guest says:

    disregard my first comment. im only 6.

  31. Y2017devcla says:

    HELL YA ILY AMERICA

  32. Angelica says:

    President Obama should not let this go through period. And as president he should in about 3 sentences make the the country understand why! Furthermore we should once and for all come to a decision about the sovereignty of the American Indian reservations. After all whenever a president and a chief signed a treaty it was nation to nation. The American Indians don not want his. And their voice should be heard! I live in New England and this is unbelievable to me that we would take this route. We’d be better off leaving things as they are until people wake up and the wealthy stop thinking of me me me and start backing and funding innovators who are interested in green energy. Look we are destroying the planet. I was told that the Tar Sands are fossils and so we are taking dead things are they are going to destroy us. Let the fossils stay where they are. And don’t cry for the oil barons they can take care of themselves. Believe me they jobs will only be in the heartland awhile and they they’ll be gone. John F. Kennedy told the steel companies hey you can’t raise prices on steel then everyone who uses still to make things will go up on their prices and the burden will fall on the people. Right. Guess what the steel companies rolled back their prices. It is up to President Obama to stand up for the country. And that includes her environment because its where we live. We don’t live in a bubble and the technology we have is not up to how fast we what to drill for oil. Not if but when there is a leak or explosion , we will have a disaster beyond repair. This proposal is detrimental and wrong. And by the way I don’t appreciate some of the dribble that I’ve read here in the comments and frankly I can’t believe how little power you feel you have aas a citizen of this country.

    • Jessan says:

      Wow Anjelica,
      The tar sands are not “fossils”. We’re not grinding up dinosaur bones up here and turning it into oil. The oil is already there, it’s just mixed with sand, and the sand must be extracted in order for the oil to be used. And ALL oil comes from living things that have long ago died (millions of years ago). And you can innovate all you want, but unless you’re willing to move to a warmer climate and sleep in a grass hut, raise some livestock, plant a garden, and live completely naked for the rest of your life then oil will always be a part of it. Let’s focus on safety and higher environmental standards instead of wasting our time on trying to stop an industry that the world has come to rely on.

      • What is wrong with trying to change our consumption habits? We DO need to grow our own food and live in grass huts (well, sustainable straw bale homes at least). Dependence on oil has bankrupted us morally, ecologically and economically. Some scientists have given us five years to stop greenhouse gas emissions. It is time to stop the oil industry. It is time to stop using non-renewable resources. Period.

  33. sillyness says:

    We are all wasting energy by surfing the web and arguing online

  34. Jessan says:

    “Canadian Market Manipulation”? What a load of BS! Ever heard of OPEC? They’ve been manipulating the price of oil for decades and are based in the Middle East! We simply have a product that YOU cannot supply for yourself and we’re looking for a customer. How is that manipulative?
    And who is this “top climate scientist” from NASA? Could his comment about “game over for the climate” be more vague? A tsunami means “game over” for the climate of the coast it hits too.
    And in case you weren’t aware, over half of a barrel of oil is used to make thousands of other items that aren’t gasoline. For example, clothes, cosmetics, film and cameras (that produce the multi-million dollar salaries for your hypocritical celebrity endorsers. But it also provides life saving necessities like anesthetics, medical tubing, artificial limbs, wheel chairs, MRI and other diagnostic equipment, even the casing for prescription capsules is made from petroleum.
    Looking at the pictures that you posted from the rallies and protests, I counted 14 items alone (from 3 pictures) that you wouldn’t have had at your disposal were it not for the petroleum industry. These included the replica pipeline (made of plastic and tape), the large foam hands that read “STOP the Trans-Canada Pipeline”, the cameras, microphones, speakers and cables used to voice your message, the computers and cell phones used to spread the word, the roads you marched on and the modes of transportation that you ALL used to get there. (Tires and sneakers are made from by products of petroleum.)
    One of my favorite parts of this blog, mostly because I’m a huge fan of irony, is when you mention the ATU and the TWU that want to focus on other projects instead, like fixing roads and bridges and water and sewage pipelines. They really can’t be that clueless to not know that in order to accomplish these tasks they need oil!
    Now, having pointed out the manipulative stance of the article you wrote, I will now focus on it’s merits. Protecting the environment. If you used half the time, energy and supporters that you have to lobby the Canadian and US governments to enact legislation that would require these companies and industries to safeguard the climates that they potentially threaten, and raise funds to find new technologies and processes that prevent damage, you’d be an international hero.
    Rather than protesting (which is simply adult whining) offer alternatives and solutions for the issues that you morally object to. Oil cannot be stopped, we have become dependent even if you’re an environmentalist, so why not fix the problem instead of bitching about it.
    http://www.treehugger.com/style/50suprisingfashionandbeautyproductsmadefromoilthatyouprobablyuseeverydayevenifyouregreen http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20petroleum.htm http://www.thedailygreen.com>NEWS>NewsArticles

  35. Kcabral1 says:

    During the early 1980s there was a big push to stop nuclear power generation. Environmentalists from all over the country demanded a stop to the building of these facilities because of health concerns. What resulted was a decrease in nuclear power usage and an increase in coal burning. Now here we are again protesting the use of oil sands without a compresensive viable alternative. Switching to alternative fuels will not stop the use of oil sands. The oil will be processed. Now the question become who do you want processing the oil? Refineries here in the U.S. that the environmentalist have some control over, or those in Japan and China–for which you have no control over.

  36. Blarrghy says:

    I have read reports that Keystone XL oil is ultimately destined for Asia. Where can I find conclusive proof of this?

  37. Anonymous says:

    You expect Americans to change their bad habits (driving large SUVs), Americans believe it is their ‘constitutional’ right to consume, not recycle etc. They forget about the energy crisis of the 70’s, when you couldn’t get gas. The automobile for America’s youth is a cultural symbol of wealth (look at any Rap video) They would rather live in a shack and drive a $100, 000 dollar gas guzzling beast such as Hummers. 99% of Canada’s crude is sent to the States for refinery, then whatever Canada needs is bought back by them. Is a pipeline any more dangerous than driving transports across? I think Canada needs more refineries, and rely less on the Americans.

  38. Krak11can says:

    If this pipeline is stopped Canada will simply sell oil to China and other asian countries. Prime Minister Harper has just informed Obama about this.
    The main argument against the oil sands is that they can be used to provide comparatively cheap energy to the U.S. The green lobby can work only if current energy sources are expensive and insecure.

    All the other objections to the oil sands are simply contrived so as to accomplish the main goal of reducing the availability of fossil fuel to the American economy.

    If Americans shut off oil sands product imports then Canada will export it to Asia. At that point the econazis will lose interest in the whole matter.

  39. Krak11can says:

    Above claim that canadian oil will be re-exported to overseas markets instead consumed in US is a pure nonsense!

  40. Clydemort says:

    Laying the pipeline alone would bring tens of thousands of jobs.

  41. Chad798 says:

    Good I read this oil will go to China …..We dont need construction jobs we need lawyers and Doctors

  42. bobby says:

    There is a proposal to build a pipeline from canada to texas. Environmentalists and some states have serious objections of the proposal, but energy companies are very much in support. They are dealing with the president and congress to resolve the differences. What function of congress is this an example? Can you give an example of another prominent issues in the past that also relied on that function for resolution?

  43. unknownstrik says:

    no more pipeline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  44. Colorado110 says:

    we need this pipeline now we need the oil this pipeline will allso carry north dakota oil which is being hauled over the Ogallala aquifers as we speak but i guess trains don’t derail and buy the way thier are thosands of pipeline that go over the Ogallala aquifers already we need to put people back to work not prevent people from working on american security

  45. Anonymous says:

    I would never have believed that there could be so many people that knew so little about a subject but like sheep are following along continually spewing BS that they have heard. The potential to contaminate the Ogallala is so minimal that it is not worthy of comment. Just think for a second where oil goes when it meets water…..duh it floats on top. Secondly it will not migrate unless it has a driver (gravity, moving water etc.)and based on my 30 years of oil spill and environmental experience, I cannot conceivably see how any land spill could or would not be contained in the immediate area of the failure. To say any spill would be worse than the BP spill in the gulf is blatantly pure bull!!!

  46. Cybunny says:

    I’m teaching a critical thinking class, and I’m going to use a few of the exchanges here as examples of reasoning – or its opposite – in action. As for the pipeline…well, I showed Gasland to my class, and when I read about Keystone, it just felt as if I’d stumbled across the modern day equivalent of Mordor…I think the earth after the frackers and “clean coal” and tar sands people get through with it would look an awful lot like the world Tolkien imagined surrounding the Dark Lord…but as they say in The Terminator, “The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.”

  47. Rostuart says:

    Protectionism is our constitutional duty. Please don’t confuse it with isolationism. Don’t listen to the spokespeople for big money. Read the Declaration of Independence again.

  48. Kids123 says:

    I am not as smart as all the other people posting comments; fact is I just now have started looking into this matter. My first observations was why don’t they build a refinery in Canada, and produce the product themselves. Seems this solution would solve all the problems in all your comments

    • Chizled says:

      Canada has lots of refineries . Its more economical to pipe it and refine it in the US then to truck it there . Canada is second in oil reserves in the world when you take into consideration the OIL Sands . So they have plenty to spare . If it doesn’t come to America it will go else where . And we will be more dependant on Middle East oil then we need to

      • The main problem with the actual source of the oil is that it’s from tar sands, which are a particularly dirty & destructive source of oil; the oil itself also will require more refining, meaning that there will also be more contaminants produced as a by-product (which the US will have to deal with). Those issues, combined with the high risk of a spill, make this pipeline simply not worth the risks.

    • daronlady620 says:

      Put simply, it’s because the Canadians don’t want it, and because there is more regulation on the industry than there is here.

  49. Jamescook1162 says:

    Well i think that they shouldn’t put the keystone pipeline up because if they do the gas prices are going to get higher and the gas prices are really high now i just wish that gas was free and no body had to worry about it i think that car should just be cars they just have a motor.

  50. Jshevsky says:

    They can say what they want about President Obama but he’s doing his job when it comes to the keystone pipeline.All the facts show the pipeline will only benefit the stock holders and Corporate heads of the pipeline and hurt more American consumers than help them, this goes for the hurting of the land the pipeline will be located through.Another instance of Corporate greed.Wake up America, be careful of what our civil servants are doing to us. The proof in the pudding to me shows no benefit to us living in the U.S.

  51. Pyancick says:

    Why can’t the pipeline be built a mile across the border in the entry point into the U.S.?
    Why? Graft, kickbacks and billions to be made by contractors who will naturally pay a high price to politicians to pass the bill. Our spending out of control now will climb emensely to line the pockets of everyone but the tax payer. The oil wll not be used in the U.S. but sent to foreign countries. Do the politicals think we are that stupid?

  52. Macktoschool says:

    The US exports most all of the Oil it produces. More drilling only makes more money for the Oil companies, and does nothing to alleviate US dependence on Foreign Oil. The pipeline is headed for Houston, where the crude will be processed and sold to Latin American, not domestically. Running the line over aquifers that provide water to most of the midwest, is not good for anyone except the oil companies.

  53. Bridge442 says:

    Many strongly-held opinions, but very few facts. Many verbal shots across the bow but few real defenses of the Pipeline. I would like to encourage everyone on this forum to consider the truths that they can see. First of all, every reader has access to Google Earth and the views it provides. Type in Hardisty, Alberta, Canada and look around at all of the production sites and the barren ground associated with them. These are not forest clear-cuts, as those are much larger areas and have no machinery sited there. From an eye-height of about 7,000 feet, scan about two miles to the south-south-west and see the northerm terminus of the Keystone Pipeline. Now add two more towns, Patoka, Illinois and Cushing, Oklahoma. The floating-top petroleum storage tanks are very visible. People, the pipeline is already here, it is an Exxon-Mobil property, and taxpayers are being asked to provide welfare for a company that is the most profitable in the world, at 10 billion dollars per year. The mantra of, “energy independence” is nonsense, unless Canada also wants to become the 51st State of the Union. Most of you got it right — they are a sovergn nation, and the oil is still very much imported. The poster that noted the article in which the price of gasoline in the midwest is a disincentive and that the central states have a minor glut on their hands and so the movement of the oil to Gulf Terminals and to foreign buyers would be win-win for Canada. Europe has been energy starved since before World War Two. They do rationing by way of price, at $11 to $16 dollars per gallon for gasoline and for diesel, Europeans limit themselves. Yes, the Autobahn still has no limit – between cities – 120 KPH wiithin city limits. By comparison, the Germans did not engage in the 28 year foolishness of the 55 MPH slowdown. The goverenment in Bonn decided that it would impair all business by about 17% and they chose not to do it. They did improve fuel economy dramatically. I will end by saying that Canada still has to import oil, approximately 31% these days. So why does it make sense that they would export it instead? Profit is the word your are thinking, and reasonably we all sell to the highest bidder when we can. As Americans, we will be disappointed when the oil goes out of the Gulf of Mexico, after we tax ourselves to bring it into the country. The existing Keystone plipeline cannot be corrupted this way, so why should we make it possible to be the dunce in this class. The present pipeline has delivery committments, or I am certain that it would have been extended to the Gulf many years ago.
    Finally, for those of you who are patient with Google Earth, please post back to me if you see even a single refinery along the length of the pipeline. It has all been a charm offensive, and we are fools if we support this scam.

  54. Joshglennc2 says:

    how did this idea even get off the ground. we have renewable resorces that are just as cheep as us transporting oil from canada to any part of the U.S.. the Keystone pipeline already crosses the Missippi River, and goes through the Ogallala Aquifer. If the oil ever gets into the missippi millions of people are going to lose their drinking water, but that’s not the worst thing that could happen if the oil gets into the Ogallala Aquifer millions of people could lose their homes all together. in Nebraska water from the Aquifier is used for just about everything that they need water for. pluse they want to build right through Yellowstone National Park down to the gulf of Mexico witch already has enough oil problems. as if that’s not bad enough already they want to put the kind of pressure on this oil that’ll make it so if the pipe gets a little crack it’ll only be about 20 min before that little crack becomes a huge hole. so this thing is a bomb just waiting to go off.

  55. Jobs:
    The pipeline company, TransCanada, says the project should create 20,000 “man years” of new jobs. That could be 10,000 jobs for 2 years, or 5,000 jobs for 4 years, but it is NOT 20,000 jobs for multiple years, it’s 20,000 jobs spread out over multiple years. Furthermore, many of those jobs will NOT be filled by Americans, they will be filled by Canadians and people from other countries. And that’s according to the company building the pipeline.
    The US State Department, the lead federal agency on the project, estimates 6,500 temporary jobs will be created. The only independent study, conducted by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, concludes that it may generate 6-7,000 temporary jobs but no more than 50 permanent jobs when the work is done. Even TransCanada only claims that “hundreds” (their exact term) of permanent jobs will be created by the project.

    Pipeline Route:
    TransCanada has, at the request of Nebraska’s REPUBLICAN Gov. Dave Heineman (who called legislators in to a special session on the issue) ALREADY AGREED TO CHANGE THE ROUTE OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE. The old route crossed over an aquifer that provides ONE THIRD of the irrigation water used in the US. Nebraskans were legitimately concerned about this fact. This new route has not been subjected to the necessary review process (including but not limited to environmental reviews) which FEDERAL LAW requires from the State Department AND other agencies. This will EASILY take more than a year, which makes it basically impossible for ANYONE to meet the ridiculous 60 day deadline imposed by the GOP. Republicans know this and that’s why their demand is absolutely ridiculous!

    Plans for the CANADIAN oil:
    TransCanada’s existing contracts and business plans indicate that most of their output will be destined for export, mostly to Asia and Europe, NOT for US domestic consumption. Currently, a good portion of the oil in question is shipped from Canada to the Midwestern US via the existing Keystone pipeline (that’s right, the XL project is just an EXTENSION to an existing line). Once at the end of the line in the Midwest, most of that oil is refined there and consumed there, which has helped keep gas and oil prices relatively low in the Midwest for the past few years. Once/if the pipeline is completed, most of that oil that is currently consumed in the Midwest will flow South (mostly to Texas) where it will be refined and MOST OF IT WILL BE EXPORTED. So, in the long run, the XL project may very well result in LESS of the oil being consumed in American. Which leads us to….

    Effect on Price of Oil in US:
    Here’s a little something you don’t hear the Republicans and proponents of this project talking about: TransCanada, THE COMPANY BUILDING THE PIPELINE, has said that this project will actually INCREASE the price of a barrel of oil in the USA! Don’t believe me? According to a Feb 2011 story from Reuters:
    “Although the pipeline, if approved, would increase the supply of oil reaching the U.S., a 2009 market analysis conducted by TransCanada, builder of the pipeline, forecast higher prices. The analysis, which TransCanada conducted as part of its Canadian permit application, projected that prices would increase about $3 per barrel as a result of the pipeline.
    That would send at least an additional $2 billion from American consumers to Canadian and multinational oil interests, despite the increase in supply.”
    Now do you believe me? In addition to this fact, the project will greatly benefit the dastardly Koch Bros who own businesses that “already import and refine 25 percent of oil sands crude reaching the U.S.” according to the same story in Reuters.

    • Meagan2u says:

      Very nicely written and informative comment. I wonder, how many like myself, don’t know that it is an extension of an already existing pipeline. Be that as it may, I think it is far too dangerous and risky to be pursued by this country. Nobody else wants the stuff. Yes, those darn Koch bros. just won’t go away! When you hear they are involved in a project like this alarm bells should go off in your head! Again, Thank you for the informative article on this nasty crude oil.

    • Anonymous says:

      $2 billion? Really? That’s mere pocket change for Barry.

      What needs to be decided is if it is worth reducing by 10% the oil we purchase from mad men who take the money we exchange for oil and use it to find ways to kill us.

      Keystone XL is worth paying an extra paltry $2 billion/yr on a gross of $1.2 trillion/yr.

      Not even worth debating.

  56. Meagan2u says:

    Possibly the biggest environmental disaster our country will ever encounter. Drinking water may be the next, most highly coveted commodity we have!

  57. SRN says:

    An Open Letter to President Obama

    Tuesday, December 20, 2011
    Dear President Obama:

    During your election campaign in 2008, you spoke eloquently about the need for a “new energy future,” one unencumbered by addiction to foreign oil and marked by investment in “alternative” sources of energy, such as solar power, wind turbines, geothermal power and wave generation. You vowed that, if elected President, you would push strongly for investment in these areas. You reiterated this point again in the powerful State of the Union address that you delivered in 2010.
    Throughout your Presidency, you have repeatedly claimed that, although fossil fuels and nuclear power are, in your view, parts of the energy picture for the foreseeable future, you are a strong believer in and advocate for the development of energy alternatives, not only in order to decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil, and not just because of the enormous potential for jobs and economic growth that investment in the alternative energy sector could provide, but also because of the necessity of reducing, immediately and drastically, the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels. Global warming is an urgent problem of global proportions, as you argued during your election campaign, and as you have repeated at times during your presidency. Your action requiring American car manufacturers to raise fuel efficiency standards is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and a significant move in the right direction.
    That brings me to the Keystone XL pipeline for transporting bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands to Texas to be refined.
    Bitumen, or “tar,” is a viscous, sticky oil-like substance that has been used for centuries as an adhesive and building material, but not as oil, because it is not the same as crude oil. To be burned like oil it first needs to be mixed with lighter hydrocarbons. It is nothing like “light sweet crude,” the oil in reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. The process of transforming bitumen into liquid fuel requires energy for steam injection and refining, a process which generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the “production” of conventional oil.
    Alberta’s “tar sands” contain something like 85% of the world’s reserves of bitumen, an amount that equals the world’s total reserves of conventional crude oil. This kind of resource has only recently become thought of as profitable. It requires huge inputs of energy and water, but as conventional crude becomes more scarce, it will undoubtedly only become more profitable to extract unconventional oil and natural gas.
    The reason why we have come to this point is because we have passed the era of peak oil. That is to say, global production of conventional oil has peaked and is now on the decline. We have passed through the era of easy oil – reserves that could be tapped simply by drilling into the ground, and releasing the pressure holding the oil in place – and into the era of difficult oil. This is why we are now drilling for oil 5 miles beneath the surface of the ocean, which is what led to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This is why the government of Canada is now so actively pursuing the extraction of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands.
    But Canada has no refineries capable of transforming bitumen from the tar sands into usable liquid oil anywhere near where the resource lies, beneath Alberta’s boreal forests. Hence, the Keystone XL pipeline project, to bring the bitumen to the refineries of Texas to be transformed into a product the oil companies can transport and sell.
    For months, thousands of Americans of every political persuasion bombarded the White House with demands that you reject this pipeline, which would carry the oil through the Ogalalla Aquifer, the groundwater resource accessed by eight U.S. states, from South Dakota to Texas, for drinking water. The project has been opposed by Republican governors, ranchers, farmers and civilians of every kind, as well as many environmental groups. Of course, you have also been lobbied intensely by the Canadian government and by oil industry representatives, for this project to go forward.
    Many breathed a huge sigh of relief when, a month ago, you declared no decision on the pipeline this year. Now, however, it seems that, thanks to your political opponents in Congress, the issue has been raised from the dead and you must, again, issue a decision on it in the near future.
    When considering what decision to make, keep in mind that this project isn’t just about job creation or the economy. Yes, it would create a relatively small number of short-term jobs, and yes, it would increase profits for the oil industry, which some feel convinced somehow benefits everyone else as well. But it would also create, not just temporarily, but in the long term and for the foreseeable future, a drastic increase in greenhouse gas emissions just when we need to be working hard to achieve the exact opposite.
    More to the point, approval of this pipeline represents a strong and enduring commitment to the very sources of dirty energy that you so eloquently and forcefully argued against as a presidential candidate.
    This is a watershed moment.
    If, as many Americans have loudly and clearly demanded, you stand by your promise to veto this project, you will reinforce your commitment to a clean energy future and a definitive move away from reliance on foreign oil.
    If, on the other hand, you cave to the pressure of oil industry lobbyists and political calculations, you risk not just losing the support of Americans concerned about the environment that carried you into office, but also the health of our natural resources and the balance of the global climate. Make the right choice.

    Sincerely,

    Seth Needler
    Professor of Environmental Science
    Portland Community College
    Portland, Oregon

  58. Lea Matthews says:

    The Republicans, in a characteristic move of cutting off their nose to spite their face, have insured their own defeat. The State Department has already said that if the have to make the decision within sixty days, the answer is NO! In addition, Keystone has admitted that they lied about the numbers of job creation. Around 6,500, just like the State Department estimate not 20,000. As a matter of fact diverting this oil to Texas refineries will actually increase prices at the pump in the Midwest by about 20 cents a gallon because at present Canada is oversupplying this area, driving prices down. Obama has made many statements lately saying he will make the decision based on what is best for all Americans.

You must be logged in to post a comment.


(c) 2014 Tar Sands Action | powered by WordPress