Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

OIL: Pipeline presents risks, but no benefits

Letter by David L. Warnick, DuPont on Oct. 4, 2011 at 11:53 am | 14 Comments »
October 4, 2011 2:43 pm

On a cursory perusal, the Viewpoint (TNT, 10-5) by Canadian Consul General Denis Stevens seems to make a passable case for the Keystone XL pipeline. It’s what he doesn’t say that should concern us.

This proposed transnational pipeline, from Canada to Texas, will carry tar sands crude oil, a particularly corrosive crude. The company also proposes to use higher pressures in the pipeline than are presently allowed in the United States, creating a dangerous combination of highly pressurized toxic fluids being pumped all the way across the U.S.

Then there is the fact that there is nothing in this for the U.S. The refineries in Texas have already signed tentative contracts for the products, nearly all of which would be exported. The pipeline will do exactly squat for our gasoline supply. The U.S. gets all the risk of a huge pipeline and none of the benefit, unless you consider higher profits for oil companies to be a national benefit.

Stevens also fails to mention the fact that the project’s primary lobbyist is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager. This might not be quite so significant were it not for the fact that the State Department, headed by Clinton, is the agency that has oversight approval on the project.

Then there is the issue of the oil sands crude itself, production of which is incredibly toxic, poisoning the air and water irremediably. We don’t need this, Canada doesn’t need it and only the oil industry profits, as usual.

The News Tribune now uses Facebook commenting on selected blogs. See editor's column for more details. Commenters are expected to abide by terms of service for Facebook as well as commenting rules for thenewstribune.com. Report violators to webmaster@thenewstribune.com.