To qualify everything I'm about to post here, people need to understand that the World actually relies on oil. Regardless of how badly people want humanity to stop using oil, it's simply not going to happen overnight, or likely even in our lifetimes.
On top of this indisputable fact, comes a second preclusion: Canadians, oil companies and our own provincial and federal governments have put so much time, research and money into the Alberta Oil Sands and Hibernia that they are NOT going to simply stop production to appease American actors and environmentalists.
Now, that being said, I have to wonder about the logic concerning all these anti-pipeline efforts.
It seems that some celebrities have joined forces with select environmentalists and have made it their personal cause to stop any pipeline from Canada to the US and are now attempting to influence us from building a pipeline on Canadian soil!
Since part of the Keystone pipeline would have gone through American States, it is understandable that special interest groups have gone all-the-way to stall and kill the project. Regardless of the damage it will do to both the economy and environment - American citizens have the right to influence American governments concerning American interests. Even if they are wrong and their government is more interested in clinging to power than logical actions.... that's democracy!
However - here are some overlooked or hidden facts that they don't want you to think about:
Americans are still going to use the same amount of oil tomorrow whether there is a pipeline or not. Americans are facing the largest unemployment levels in their history. Hidden from the public is the 13,000+ lost high paying jobs (mostly long-term) that could have bolstered the American economy. Tons upon tons of fuel will be burned to ship Saudi oil across the oceans on a daily basis.
They also fail to mention how many oil tankers have run aground (or had accidents) over the past 40-50 years, causing massive pollution and widespread environmental disasters. And while pipelines have had their disasters also, the majority of pipeline leaks are more easily sealed and crude oil reclaimed than those ship-accidents on water. (The exception - of course - is the blunder BP oil caused with their pipeline).
Also, considering the following facts - that pipeline disasters are more common in South America and Asia than in North America. In fact only a handful of leaks have been reported in North America and most have been contained quickly and a vast majority have been due to negligence either on the employees or the company. Whereas weather has played a key role in the majority of oil tanker incidents.
You can see all the relative issues here, and if you look closely (not just at the overall numbers), you will notice that only a few pipeline incidents have occurred on North American shores.
It seems the environmental movement has become rather one-sided and has chosen to ignore this and many other factors. In fact - the whole environmental movement has chosen to ignore all the possible consequences from most of their actions.
Talk about 'environmentalisms'.
Lets look into the options. We are already assuming that Hibernia and oil sand projects will simply not stop production - oil pipelines or not. I think this is a reasonable conclusion. So they need to ship this oil to refineries that produce diesel, gasoline and other oil-based fuels. Without a pipeline to move it, they will rely on huge oil trucks that run on diesel fuel to move it across dry land, and then oil tankers to ship it to the closest port near the refineries that are purchasing it, and then more trucks to drive across various land masses.
Can environmentalists actually claim the amount of fuel burned (in the above scenarios) is less than the alternative? A little known fact is that most Oil tankers do not use Diesel as its main fuel due to the costs involved. They tend use what's called Bunker Oil, which is in itself one of the dirties and highest polluting oils that exists. Talk about environmental concerns well hidden!
Over 2 Billion metric tonnes of crude oil a year are shipped by oil tankers across the ocean to the United States. Most of this comes from Arab nations. Yes, these are the same nations that are famous for their treatment of women, concern for the well being of their citizens, and vast democracies. Since we pay enormous rates and fees to these countries - We should all feel good that this money goes to the well being of their citizens and cleaning up their fossil fuel emissions. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic).
I think if these actors and environmentalists put their efforts into smarter quarters, things would be a lot better in North America. But they choose to push their agenda in the wrong areas. Pipelines are safer and use less energy to transport their goods across land masses. The construction of these pipelines employs Americans and Canadians alike. The maintenance of the machinery and technology ensures more, highly skilled people are employed.
But by speaking out against the Keystone Pipeline and the Northern Gateway pipeline (on Canadian soil), they can get heard and have their agenda seen. In reality, they are trying to shut-down the oil sands. They are not really opposed to the Pipelines, they are opposed to a pipeline from the oil sands.
The facts are that we rely on oil. Its not whether we use it or don't use it, the issue is how we get it and what can we do to slowly wean ourselves off it. Oil, in of itself is non-polluting, it is how we use it and how we extract it that causes the problems. Once we can start finding alternatives to oil, then things - environmentally - can improve. Until then, we need to minimize the damage. One way to do that is to buy oil closer to home, another is by creating a better transportation method - ie: pipelines.
Comments
Post a Comment