Benefits of US-Canadian oil pipeline

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels expressed his support last week for the construction of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline that would carry heavy crude oil from Alberta, Canada to Texas.

We applaud the governor for doing so because the pipeline will benefit America’s economy and national security, and because it poses very little environmental risk.

The pipeline will benefit the U.S. economy in three significant ways:

First, the American Petroleum Institute estimates the project will create 20,000 jobs, starting as soon as the U.S. State Department approves it.

Second, the project will create opportunities for refineries across the country to expand their operations and create even more jobs. BP’s refinery in Whiting, Ind., is an example of a refinery that would benefit from this project, as it is currently expanding its facilities in order to process more crude oil, such as the heavy crude being extracted in Alberta.

Third, the pipeline will help exert downward pressure on gas prices by bringing to market the increasing oil supply coming from Alberta, which is expanding the amount of oil available on the world market.

More so, the pipeline will enhance American security by reducing the relative reliance of hostile oil-producing regimes.The potential impact of expanded Canadian production is likely to be quite large. As global energy expert Daniel Yergin noted in The Washington Post last week, “In little more than a decade, Canada’s oil sands have gone from being a fringe resource to a major one.”

Yergin went on to point out that Canadian oil sands already produce “more oil than Libya exported before its civil war.” Additionally, he said, “Canadian oil sands output could double to three million barrels per day by the beginning of the next decade. This increase, along with its other oil output, would make Canada a larger oil producer than Iran — becoming the world’s fifth-largest behind Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and China.”

On the subject of environmental safety, we are confident the pipeline poses very little danger for two reasons:

First, the State Department reported in August the pipeline would pose “no significant impacts” to the resources in its intended path, as long as TransCanada Corporation, the company wishing to build the pipeline, follows the environmental protection procedures it has agreed to follow.

Second, unlike the hard-to-control spill on BP’s Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico last year,leaks in pipelines going over or under dry land are usually stopped within minutes, allowing for any damage to be well contained and cleaned up quickly.

When a project with such positive anticipated impacts presents itself, we believe the State Department should jump at the chance to approve it.