This post was written by Shelby Carella
The Keystone and Dakota Pipelines are actually good for the environment say top scientists, and liberals and the Indians are freaking out.
When it comes to accidents, injuries, and fatalities, pipelines are the safest mode of transporting oil and gas. After four exhaustive environmental reviews, the Department of State determined that Keystone XL poses minimal environmental risk to soil, wetlands, water resources, vegetation, fish, and wildlife. One of the most particular concerns of environmentalists has been the point where the pipeline crosses the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, despite the fact that thousands of miles of pipeline already cross the aquifer. Both the State Department and external geologists conclude that the aquifer is at extremely minimal risk of contamination because of the slope of the aquifer and the geologic makeup of the soil.
Via Heritage, a Scientific Foundation.
Oil imported from Canada via the pipeline would displace more expensive U.S. imports, according to MIT’s Chris Knittel. The displaced imports would likely have come from Venezuela. That country’s heavy crude oil is generally more carbon-intensive than the crude from Canadian oil sands.
For one thing, Knittel argues, even if Keystone XL isn’t built, a tar sands pipeline of some sort is bound to be built—there’s just too much money ($32 million a day [the original version had a typo and read “billion”]) to be made from building one to think that it won’t happen.
Whatever pipeline is built, it won’t actually increase oil production much, he says, because it will have only a tiny impact on the world oil market. It may lower prices a little, but not enough to increase demand. And if oil demand isn’t going to go up, neither are greenhouse gas emissions.