Posted September 19, 2013
Five years … and counting. The Keystone XL pipeline now has been under consideration by the Obama administration for five years – or about twice as long as it would take to complete the project linking Canada’s oil sands region with U.S. refiners onthe Gulf Coast and longer than a number of iconic projects highlighted here by the folks at Oil Sands Fact Check. So, what have we learned?
First, there’s the power of politics. Opponents of oil sands – and, generally, all fossil fuels – have waged a war of proxy against a shovel-ready project that would create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs, stimulate the economy and make our country more energy secure. Unfortunately, the Keystone XL has been turned into a symbol for an off-oil political agenda that’s detached from fact and reason
Posted September 12, 2013
For Canada, the question of whether the Keystone XL pipeline should be built can be reduced to a handful of clarity producing contrasts – as Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Gary Doer framed for a group of reporters this week:
Does the U.S. choose oil from Venezuela or neighbor and ally Canada?
Do we transport that oil by pipeline, in an environmentally safe and cost-effective manner, or by other means?
Do we choose infrastructure construction, meaning thousands of U.S. jobs and economic stimulus, or the status quo?
Posted April 12, 2013
To hear the other side, you’d think the Keystone XL pipeline project would be nearly 1,200 miles of all pain, no gain for the United States. No rewards? The U.S. State Department has reviewed the Keystone XL four times now and finds rewards aplenty. While Keystone XL opponents don’t like State’s fourth favorable analysis any more than they liked the previous three, they should pay attention nonetheless. Let’s go down the list:
Jobs: Opponents minimize the number and duration of Keystone XL-associated jobs. State says:“Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the proposed Project would potentially support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1-to 2-year construction period
Posted January 3, 2012
From a post on the Climate Progress website (cross-posted on Grist), on the environmental effects of Canadian oil sands production:
“Extraction of Alberta's energy-intensive tar sands has expanded steadily in recent years, with about 232 square miles now exposed by mining operations. Tar-sands production is expected to double over the next decade, which could mean the destruction of 740,000 acres of boreal forest …”
The post includes photo comparisons – purportedly depicting the before and after of oil sands development. It looks/sounds dreadful. One commenter to the site writes, “What a beautiful country it was …”
Posted August 4, 2011
Posted July 14, 2011
Posted July 1, 2011
canadian-oil-sands domestic-energy economic-growth fracking hydrofracking natural-gas-benefits oil-access oil-production oil-refining water-quality economic-revenue energy-supply-and-demand oil-innovation oil-technology shale-benefits
Posted June 29, 2011
Posted June 24, 2011
Jane Van Ryan
Posted June 20, 2011