Ask people about the future of energy, and you’ll probably hear mention of “solar,” “wind,” and “ethanol.” These developing energy technologies have been invested in, loaned to, subsidized, and mandated—yet they’ve repeatedly fallen short.
If the vaunted renewables aren’t yet ready for prime time, what will we do if, for example, Iran makes good on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and blocks a significant supply of the world’s energy? Just the fear of a supply disruption bumped up the price of oil.
The geopolitics provide a perfect backdrop for pushing the pipeline that will boost the economy through more jobs and price stability, provide energy security, and help balance the trade deficit. Opponents see building the Keystone XL pipeline as a flashpoint for the strugglebetween old and new energy paradigms—yet with the failure of so-called future energy, the pipeline is representative of our energy future.
Untold billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been spent trying to force renewables into an unnatural economic timeline with the expectation that the laws of nature will bow to the laws of politicians. Yet, not one of them produces a significant percentage of our energy needs. If we lost 20% of our renewable energy, we’d never feel it. If we lost 20% of our oil supply—the amount that goes through the Strait of Hormuz, we could be back to the rationing and gas lines that are reminiscent of the Carter administration.
“President Obama repeatedly assured the American public that a slew of taxpayer-funded projects in his 2009 stimulus package were ‘shovel-ready.’ Yet few of these projects ever got off the ground, and the jobs they produced were negligible,” says National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow, Bonner Cohen. “By contrast, the Keystone XL project really is shovel-ready. And even though it would produce jobs and energy quickly, he refuses to give it the green light.”
In a time of economic war, the Keystone XL pipeline is a job creator that requires no new technology or research, no taxpayer funding while generating new tax revenues, and no new infrastructure—all with virtually no risk (financial or environmental).
Harold McGowen, President and CEO of Navidad Resources in Tyler, TX, explains it this way: “There is nothing new about pipelines. We already have over 2.3 million miles of pipelines in the United States, including about 55,000 miles of crude oil trunk lines. These crude oil pipelines have safely and efficiently transported the crude oil that is required to sustain the food supply, transportation, and quality of life of every American for decades. Pipelines continue to be the safest mode of transporting the lifeblood of the nation. They are safer than trains—which can derail; sea-going tankers—which can rupture, sink and run aground; and trucks—that can crash.”
The Keystone XL pipeline, and the tens of thousands of true shovel-ready jobs it can provide, isn’t just about moving oil from Canada to the US, it will allow for safer transport of new oil discoveries like North Dakota’s Bakken Field that produces more than 400,000 barrels per day. Because there is not enough pipeline capacity, Bakken oil is currently being taken to refiners in Louisiana via rail with the Bakken Oil Express’ capacity at only 100,000 barrels per day. Increased capacity, provided by the pipeline, would encourage additional oil development in the West, benefitting production in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado.
Build the XL extension, explore your proven reserves, refurbish and expand your nuclear plants and you folks will become the energy juggernaut that was meant to be.
Washington needs a major overhaul. November 2012 is right around the corner.
Which states are pissed about the pipeline, and what parties do their political elite belong to? I thought most were Republican and were squawking because of concerns over their water (an aquifer). Doesn’t their 10th Amendment rights have some place in this? Plus, if we bring Canada’s oil to the gulf, can’t they just sell it on the open market and push up the price we pay? Right now they (the Canadians) have limited means to distribute the oil which makes it better for us. Just wondering if the true conservative position would be to support the states who have a beef on this, and look at the issue of what happens to the oil when it makes it to the gulf… do we get first dibs on it while taking the environmental risks and not having to pay through the nose for it?