Sitting on the Pipeline: Do You Want the Oil, or Not?
Posted: Monday, August 01, 2011
by Jack H. Schick
Three years ago Trans-Canada Corporation filed with the United States Government for a permit to build a 2,000 mile pipeline that would carry crude oil from Alberta to refineries in Texas. Our neighbors to the north have discovered and are developing a tar sand deposit that contains enough oil to rival the petroleum reserves of Saudi Arabia. The Canadians would prefer to send their product to the U.S. for refining rather than transport it over the Rocky Mountains to the west coast then ship it to China. The permit has languished in the federal bureaucracy ever since.
If the permit is approved construction of the pipeline would begin immediately. It would create over 10,000 jobs in the United States through construction and the need for increased refinery capacity. Five major labor unions support approving the permit. Proponents claim that the increased importation of Canadian crude would reduce the amount we are required to purchase from the Middle East and increase gasoline supplies, reducing its price.
Henry Waxman, D-Calif, disagrees, and said that the pipeline “would carry sludge made from Canadian tar sands through the middle of America. In doing so, it would raise gas prices, endanger water supplies and increase carbon emissions, and that’s why it should not be approved…Once it is built, we will live with the pipeline and its impacts for 50 years or more.” Other opponents claim that increasing crude oil supply sources and American refining capacity will negatively impact the effort to wean the nation off oil dependency. Larger refineries would also increase pollution dangers.
This week the Republican controlled House of Representatives presented a bill that would set a deadline for President Obama to act on Trans-Canada’s permit application. The bill (HR 1938) is non-binding, though. It is solely an executive branch decision and congress cannot force the administration to act on the permit. The Department of Energy and the President are resistant to making any decisions that would appear to favor an oil company or would promote the continued use of fossil fuels.
In a last minute effort, House Democrats attempted to add an amendment to HR 1938 that would delay issuing the permit until Trans-Canada submitted another report proving it had sufficiently calculated the worst-case scenarios and that it would be able respond immediately and effectively to an oil spill. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii) said the pipeline “will go over important aquifers, and…after experiencing the BP oil spill, (constituents) expect us to address and recognize that that type of catastrophe may occur.”
Most Congress-persons agreed with Lee Terry, (R-Neb), through whose state the pipeline will be built. He said, “The analysis of a worst-case scenario…is already part of the application. It’s part of the environmental-impact statement…So I believe that the amendment is really superfluous and unnecessary.”
The amendment was defeated; 168 for, and 260 against. HR 1938 was passed; 279 for, and 147 against. The Administration will take the deadline under advisement and said it could decide on the permit by the end of the year. Trans-Canada is not holding its breath. They are investigating offers to buy the oil from China and other foreign nations.
This Article has been viewed 296 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)What is the matter with our elected officials - and us for electing them?Good to see you. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Oil is smelly, as are people involved with oil. They both catch fire easily as well. I prefer clean energy. Thank you.why do you comment anonymously?Because it's my constitutional right to do so sir.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.