• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Narrow Interest Blocks Big Pipeline

    The Obama Administration, encouraged by environmental groups, has blocked yet another affordable energy project—the Keystone XL Pipeline. Add this to the unconscionable slowdown of leasing and production in the Gulf of Mexico, foot-dragging on production in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, blocks on offshore production in the Atlantic and Pacific, and continued prohibitions and impediments to production in non-park, non-wilderness areas of the Western U.S. and ANWR. For each one, the claim is that the production wouldn’t make much difference.

    Well, the XL Pipeline would bring 750,000 barrels per day to our energy markets. Just this one pipeline would add nearly as much as the 800,000 to 900,000 barrels per day we import from Venezuela—our fourth-largest foreign supplier. One of the most fundamental and least controversial concepts in economics is that increasing supply reduces price. The impact on petroleum price is compounded by the host of petroleum-producing projects that have been blocked, delayed, and impeded by the Administration. These projects could add millions of barrels per day to the petroleum markets.

    The Administration blamed the Republicans and the imposed deadline for its bad decision. This is the wispiest of smokescreens. The State Department already did a thorough, years-long assessment of the pipeline and concluded that there would be no significant environmental impact.

    The potential impact on the Ogallala aquifer is the supposed concern of the environmentalists. However, a map of the existing oil and gas pipelines shows that claim to be ludicrous. The Ogallala aquifer is already covered with gas and oil pipelines. The real target is the environmentalists’ obsession with carbon dioxide and global warming. The well-to-wheel carbon footprint of oil-sands gasoline is 10–15 percent higher than for gasoline produced from some other reserves.

    Even if you believe that colorless, odorless, non-toxic CO2 does the damage these environmentalists claim, the cost they assign to the 10–15 percent increase in CO2 emissions works out to about 1 percent of the value of the crude. So, what’s the big deal if capitulating on the CO2 hysteria still doesn’t create a case against oil sands?

    Unlike the overpriced and unreliable green-energy projects preferred by the Administration, the Keystone XL Pipeline would be funded entirely by private funds and would add to government revenue—a benefit in this time of deficits. In addition, according to union estimates, it would create tens of thousands of construction jobs. It would also boost employment in the high-paying refining industry.

    Canada is not a criminal enterprise run by robber barons. It is a first-world country with stringent environmental standards for both the extraction of the oil and the reclamation of the land used. They certainly do not need lectures on carbon footprints from American celebrities who fly in private jets and live in 10,000-square-foot houses.

    But that’s what they get, and that’s who seems to be dictating our own energy policy. The Keystone XL Pipeline makes sense for energy affordability, employment, and national income. In spite of all the good economic sense for the vast majority of Americans, it appears that the pipeline makes bad political sense at the White House. Where are the 99 percenters when you need them?

    We have dragged this pipeline project through the regulatory wringer enough already. The project passed all the tests other than winning over radical, big-donor environmentalists. For the real 99 percenters—those Americans who want better jobs and cheaper gasoline—it is imperative that the Administration approve the Keystone XL Pipeline without further delay.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Narrow Interest Blocks Big Pipeline

    1. Werner Loell says:

      Ah, true to form David is thinking the "now" at the expense of tomorrow. We are on a never-ending treadmill and only heating up the planet at an accelerating rate. Yes, the "CO2 hysteria" will has had precious little impact really in mitigating our obsession for fossil energy, in particular coal. Where is the scientific data to refute or support the cost benefits of tar sand oil extraction and refining? Opinions are not facts no news and the scientific case remains at a premium.

    2. John Pisula says:

      Werner — No sense letting facts get in the way of your opinion. "We are on a never-ending treadmill and only heating up the planet at an accelerating rate." Fortunately, the scientific date proves you to be wrong. The data is showing nominal and no-significant change in temperature over the past decases. Unfortunately, you also put too much enphasis on proven unreliable technology, that is really a gov't bribe slush fund for left wing groups!

      NASA report titled “Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects”:
      “Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998.”

      Oops. There’s an inconvenient truth for you.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×