Keystone Pipeline: Foreign Profits, American Risk
By Katherine McFate
Media
coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline is coalescing around a single narrative.
It goes like this: environmentalists oppose the pipeline because of climate
change concerns, and U.S. construction companies support the pipeline because
it creates jobs.
Environmentalists
warn that tar sands crude oil has three times the global warming potential of
conventional crude. Oil industry interests shrug and say Canadian companies
will continue to extract tar sands, with or without the pipeline.
Pipeline
opponents then counter: fewer than 50 permanent jobs will be needed to staff
the pipeline, a few thousand temporary construction jobs to build it. But this
rendering of the debate misses the larger picture.
Americans
have been told for the past several years by the petroleum industry and members
of Congress that Keystone is "key to America's energy independence"
and will help ensure America has the energy it needs in the future. This is
hogwash.
We
have a glut of oil and gas in the U.S. because of largely unregulated fracking
going on in 31 states. Between our growing natural gas supply and OPEC's effort
to quash the U.S. energy boom, gas prices are so low that American producers
may slow their drilling. The Keystone pipeline will not reduce the cost of
gasoline or home heating oil for American consumers.
What
a TransCanada pipeline will do is put a major underground water supply at risk.
Keystone XL would be built directly above the Ogallala Aquifer, located beneath
most of Nebraska and extending to seven other states. The Ogallala is a shallow
aquifer, meaning a pipeline spill could easily pollute this drinking water
source for two million Americans.
The
pipeline would cross thousands of acres of farmland in the Great Plains; a
spill could make this land unusable for years. In 2013, an oil pipeline spilled
840,000 gallons of crude near Tioga, North Dakota, and crews are still working
to clean it up. Keystone I, which runs from Canada through Illinois, had 14
reported leaks during its first year of operation.
TransCanada
has been criticized for failing to comply with Canadian safety regulations, and
the company does not intend to use the latest safety technology to detect
spills along the Keystone XL route. With the pipeline traveling through miles
of grassland, leaks could go undetected and unaddressed until water and soil
are irreparably damaged.
In
Texas, where pipeline construction has already begun, landowners have reported
issues to the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and
been told that there are not enough inspectors to investigate their claims.
An
additional concern is the impact on the Gulf. The pipeline would carry Canadian
crude to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, to communities like Port Arthur,
Texas where residents are already burdened with disproportionally high levels
of pollution.
These communities would bear the brunt of increased emissions
from refining dirty tar sands crude and the Gulf Coast -- still not recovered
from the 2010 BP oil spill -- would take on the risk of further spills from
increased export traffic.
The
Keystone decision is being reviewed by the State Department because it is a
critical issue for the nation. This project asks American farmers, ranchers,
and residents in the path of the pipeline and those in port communities along
the Gulf Coast to put crucial parts of our nation's water supply, grasslands,
and habitats at risk so that Canadian oil producers -- and some U.S. oil
refineries -- can benefit. This is a bad deal.
We
can find alternative energy sources, but American water supplies are precious
and under pressure. Just ask agriculturalists and consumers in the West.
Instead of responding to the narrow interests of a few oil companies, we need
our elected officials to steward the natural resources that have allowed our
country to prosper and feed the world.
McFate is the
president and CEO of the Center for Effective Government in Washington, D.C.
