Dear America,
The Keystone pipeline has been in the news again recently. The candidates are being asked about their positions on the TransCanada owned project and there was a set of hearings in Pierre, South Dakota about its path through the state, though it is for a renewal of a permit that was approved in 2010 at the state Department of Public Utilities regulation level, albeit the federal regulatory level permit is the one that counts. By the way, the need for State Department approval of any pipeline that crosses an American border into our country was promulgated by the administration of George W. Bush in the first of his two terms, and I presume that American pipeline companies made him do it. Bernie Sanders is against the proposed XL segment of the pipeline and Hillary Clinton refuses to commit. Trump is for it, of course. He informed his supporters via Twitter, which allows him to formulate his policies in 140 character phrases rather than fully articulated, comprehensive discussion, which is good for a guy with all kinds of nonsensical ideas that have no foundation in reality. He's from the camp that urges immediate action, because thinking is overrated, and Twitter fits right in. But the pipeline question isn't resolvable by Trump's pontifications on the lack of environmental impact and the man many jobs he claims...despite studies showing that no more than 6,000 and as few as 3,000 will be created all along the 1,100+ mile course of the pipeline and less than 40 permanent jobs will result...neither answer the questions nor resolve the claims into facts. The real issue is the utility of the XL segment in light of the extant Keystone pipeline, which runs from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada through Steele City, Nebraska all the way to the Gulf Coast. The XL segment serves only one purpose, and that's to get 600,000 barrels more Canadian tar sands oil to the Gulf Coast refineries so that more can be exported. By the way, the Obama administration has just approved trading with Mexico to the tune of 100,000 barrels of crude per day, which raises our exports of crude and distillates even further at a time when there isn't enough in the mid-west of things like the petroleum distillate propane, necessary in agriculture. But that brings me to what I see as the solution to the dilemma of whether to build it or not.
At Steele City, the pipeline now forks, sending raw crude oil to the refineries in Illinois and also to the refineries on the Gulf Coast. We need it in one place (Illinois) and we don't need it in the other, from which we are already producing so much distillate that we are exporting it. So why not limit the flow of XL crude so it meets our national needs rather than the commercial demands of a refining industry that is already awash with cash. What if the permit for the XL were revised so that instead of running to Steele City it ran to the refineries in Illinois at Patoka and Wood River where the supply is needed. By rerouting the pipeline that way, the prospect of increasing the exportable supply of distillates from the Gulf Coast, and it would obviate the need for shipping the refined petroleum products from the Gulf Coast to where they are needed in the mid-west and the north-east. Extend the length of the pipeline carrying petroleum from Canada and reduce the flow of gasoline and the like over our highways, railways and domestic pipeline system. It would seem thereby to reduce environmental hazards at least proportionately with the increase represented by the XL, it would create that many more jobs, and it would ensure that we are meeting our own needs as a nation of consumers rather than as a corporate refining conglomerate.
How about that, America?
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment