An opposition to Keystone XL

While reading the editorial published Thursday titled “Benefits of US-Canadian oil pipeline,” I found myself shaking with frustration.

As one of more than 1,200 arrested this September in an act of civil disobedience in front of the White House in opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, I was appalled by the simplistic and poorly-founded argument put forth, and 500 words here is hardly enough to respond.

To say the pipeline “poses very little environmental risk” is simply not true.

The environmental impact survey conducted for the State Department was by a company under contract with TransCanada, the company that proposed the
pipeline. The report has been proven to be egregiously flawed in its assessment of the environmental risks and is evidence of the cronyism surrounding the project.

The pipeline will destroy farmland throughout the Great Plains and pass directly over the Ogallala Aquifer, the continent’s largest aquifer, which serves as a vital source of irrigation and drinking water in eight states. Leaks, which are inevitable, will threaten the aquifer and more than 40 private wells which fall within 100 feet of the path of the pipeline.

Additionally, the editorial in criticism fails to take into account the horrendously destructive source of the oil, the tar sands of Alberta. To utilize more of the tar sands would mean increased stripping of ancient forests from the earth — which might never return — in the extraction of a substance called bitumen, aka “tar sands.”

This bitumen then requires chemical processing, which consumes 2 to 4.5 barrels of water per barrel of oil produced, none of which can be reclaimed from the uncovered toxic ponds the excess is stored in. The resulting synthetic crude oil requires further refinement and transportation, which also requires energy.

Thus, the tar sands are more carbon-intensive than conventional oil due both to the amount of energy consumed during extraction and refinement and to the destruction of forests that convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.  

Therefore, the increased use of tar sands oil through the new pipeline will impact climate change immensely, so much so that leading climate scientist from NASA, James Hansen, has said that if the pipeline is constructed, it’s “essentially game over for the climate.”

If this does not qualify as a notable environmental risk, nothing does. The evidence in support of climate change is overwhelming — despite failed attempts to discredit it such as the alleged scandal of “Climategate.”

The future of the Keystone XL pipeline will be a major determining factor for the future of U.S. energy policy.

Consequently, it deserves intelligent and thorough public discussion and not the use of clearly biased sources, such as the American Petroleum Institute, which was cited by the previous article for its projections on job creation for this project.  

API’s jobs creation estimate has been disputed by an independent study conducted at Cornell University, which found the estimates are “unsubstantiated” and “that the project could actually kill more jobs than it creates.”  

Gov. Mitch Daniels should reconsider supporting this project.  

­— proren@indiana.edu