Huge economic benefits of Keystone XL pipeline to outweigh risks
by Don McKee
Columnist
April 03, 2013 12:00 AM | 5005 views | 1 1 comments | 8 8 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Don McKee
Don McKee
slideshow
A new national survey has found strong support for the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada at the very time when an oil spill in Arkansas raises new concerns and offers fuel for opponents.

The poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center found 66 percent of Americans favor the pipeline that would carry oil from Canada to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

Only 23 percent of the people sampled said they opposed the pipeline. The support is very broad, spanning all age brackets and political groupings. Among young people 18 to 19, there was 60 percent approval versus 27 percent disapproval.

Republicans favored the pipeline by a very wide margin, 82 percent to 10 percent, and Democrats favored it 54-34 — although among liberal Democrats 48 percent opposed, while 42 percent favored.

On the issue of fracking — high-pressure drilling with water and chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from rock formations — 48 percent of Americans favored increased use of this process, while 38 percent opposed.

Apparently, most Americans have caught onto the idea that the pipeline represents tremendous economic benefits as opposed to possible environmental problems. The Keystone XL would traverse 1,179 miles from Hardisty, Alta., Canada, to Steele City, Neb., where it would link to TransCanada’s Gulf Coast Pipeline and coastal refineries.

TransCanada says the $5.3 billion Keystone XL “will require 9,000 skilled American workers.” In addition, it says “an estimated 7,000 U.S. jobs are supported in manufacturing steel pipe” and other equipment. The company has contracts with more than 50 suppliers in 18 states across this country, ranging from California and New York to Louisiana, South Carolina and Georgia.

The pipeline also would “support significant growth of crude oil production in the United States by allowing American oil producers more access to the large refining markets found in the American Midwest and along the U.S. Gulf Coast,” the company says.

If TransCanada has its numbers right, construction and development of the Keystone XL and the Gulf Coast line — which is expected to be completed by year end — will generate a staggering $20 billion in economic impact in the United States.

It’s no wonder that a two-thirds majority of Americans favor this economic engine called Keystone XL.

The burning question now is: Will an oil spill from Exxon Mobil’s aged Pegasus pipeline in a housing development near Mayflower, Ark., last Saturday pose a major problem for Keystone XL? U.S. State Department officials will go to Nebraska in about two weeks to get public feedback on the Keystone XL, and the latest spill that blackened lawns and streets in the Arkansas town is certain to reinvigorate opposition to the TransCanada pipeline.

There are definite risks with the Keystone XL and other pipelines — just as there are with transporting oil, gas and chemicals via rail and truck. But with the technology now available and stricter regulations, pipelines can be built and maintained to standards that will minimize problems.

Bottom line, in my view: The benefits should outweigh the risks.

dmckee9613@aol.com
Comments
(1)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
otter357
|
April 06, 2013
I agree with you, the benefits should outweigh the risks, it would be nice.

It would be nice if the benefits outweighed the risks, but they don't.

If built,the pipeline will leak, and it will pollute the giant aquifer in the center of the nation. All pipelines leak.

Mr Mc Kee wants to gamble, risking someone else's water supply for a very marginal gain. And did I hear correctly, he says its safe because of new technology and new regulation? Regulation his party seeks to gut at every opportunity?

Regulation that is often not obeyed?

Technology always fails if you wait long enough, it's not if, but when, unless the second law of thermodynamics has been repealed.



When will non-technicals learn that you can't negotiate with some kinds of problems, and that wish fulfillment followed by inaccurate risk assessment is a certainty?

Really Mr McKee, your assessment is that we should risk it, betting the northern midwest's water supply? Do you know impossible it would be to clean up the inevitable spill?

Your willingness to make this judgement tells me you are not well enough informed to decide for other people.

Potentially catastrophic risks like this can't be allowed!

The gulf oil spill, nuclear reactor meltdowns, this latest thing in Alabama...see the hand in front of your face: the second law of thermodynamics is not mocked!
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides