Defending Keystone XL

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/opinion/nocera-how-not-to-fix-climate-change.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/opinion/arguing-about-the-keystone-pipeline.html?ref=opinion

***************

"Strategic thinking is the bridge that links where you are to where you want to be." (John C. Maxwell)

***************

Trying to summarize the Keystone XL pipeline issue is next to impossible but I thought Joe Nocera (who is pretty good at doing that on many different issues) did a pretty good job.

I guess we no longer refer to the Keystone XL pipeline as "Keystone XL II" because that's what it is. The original Keystone XL pipeline exists and it works. The proposed second pipeline would simply double (roughly) the volume of oil flowing from Canada to the Gulf. These people know what they're doing.

Keystone II was held up in the Secretary of State's office for three years (!) while "experts" dallied with changes to make it "safe." I think (my memory is getting hazy now with time passing) Keystone agreed to over "50" changes in it's proposal for "Keystone II" so the state department politicians could be satisfied. These were not small changes: one involved putting the pipeline 4 feet underground. So, the state department approved and sent the proposal on to the President who evidently thought that it was too close to elections to risk approving so he said it needed more study. The he (the President) "approved" the southern portion of the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf prior to elections (that's $7 billion). I guess that portion didn't need "more study."

According to Nocera, Keystone is back in the news because the State of Nebraska, which had previously opposed the pipeline, recently dropped its opposition after TransCanada, the company hoping to build it, rerouted portions of it to avoid sensitive lands and aquifers: "Canada, still miffed by Obama's rejection of the pipeline last year, is threatening to sell the oil to China if the U.S. says no again."

As I recall, we've had a Presidential election. I recall, as well, that Bill Clinton, former President and an Obama supporter, predicted prior to the election that President Obama would approve the pipeline "after" the election. We're waiting.

In the meantime, the New York Times has published letters from prominent people disagreeing with Nocera's position that the pipeline needs "approval.". In a letter from Richard Ottinger (who is dean emeritus of Pace University Law School and a former Democratic member of the House of Representatives from New York), it was pointed out that tar sands are among the dirtiest and highest polluting fuels and they emit the most greenhouse gases. He goes on to say: "If this tar sands project isn't stopped, how are we ever going to get a handle on climate change and air pollution? China is already asphyxiating its population with coal and is trying hard to alleviate the problem. I can't see the Chinese adding tar sands to the misery of their people and risking popular protests."

Really. China is scouring the world for oil. If they get the oil, they will use it.

And a small technical point: much of the refinery capacity along the U.S. Gulf coast is made for heavy oil. The investment is already there. Those refineries "crack" Venezuela's heavy crude.

So, what was this decision delay about again? Was it "politics?"