Friday, 22 July 2011 12:33

The Keystone XL Pipeline Debate

The Keystone XL Pipeline is that pipeline, that brings Canadian oil sands to Texas. The line is crossing through the Yellowstone National Park. In the last days, we all heard about an accident, when the line got damaged and 750-1000 barrels of oil streamed in the Yellowstone River. Everybody got scared, of course, since everybody saw the great catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. The Keystone pipeline has been closed and these days a great debate splits the public opinion: does the US industry needs to keep this crude oil import source or not?

The Government, however, says no. As you may read in this article,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/why-more-oil-sands-crude-in-us-doesnt-make-sense/article2104943/

they really believe in the “blueprint” program. In their point of view, the demand of crude oil, the demand of the most important power source for the industrial engine, will decline in the next years. A reduction of crude use by 3.5 millions barrels per day by 2025. But let us look at this chart:

Yeah, the daily consumption of crude in 2010 was around 20 millions of barrels. Just look at other statistics like that, and everywhere you will see an upward trend. It is really hard to believe that the American industry will use so little fuel in the future. unless the left wants the USA strangled economically, making America more dependent of foreign crude and thus at the mercy of tricky international policies.

Of course, they explain all this with the use of environmental friendly energy sources, like wind, sun and so on. But to use all this elements, they have to build a brand new infrastructure for all this highly questionable energy sources. and to match the performance, by this so-called green approach, of the power that currently obtained from burning crude oil. All this costs a lot more money and it takes a lot more time to realize. while persons with astounding expertise, such as bill gates, publicly question the fesability of wind and solar energy sources.

Also, they like to use in all of their articles the “global warming” factor to scare and impress people. alarmists threaten with unfounded claims, such as "we don't have enough oil, the earth will go out of water and oxygen and so on." all this just to take even more money from us and to create a hype around non existing problems, that could have been solved in easier and simpler ways.

The government can't reduce the use of crude, just because they declared this in their new strategy called “blueprints”. Almost every US president in the last decades tried to do this, but they failed. Even if the prices of crude are getting higher, this is still the cheapest way to power the industry. In addition, there are new technologies that create machines with an optimized fuel consumption for the same, or even bigger, output performance. but you can't burn anything else and achieve the same power as when burning crude or natural gas.

I can understand that many people are afraid about a second catastrophe next to the historical Yellowstone Park. But there are two things that everybody should consider.

1. The material, which streams through the Keystone pipeline is not at all the same as the conventional thick liquid crude oil. Nor even like tar sands, as many of the journalist like to call this stuff. This Canadian oil is a sandy clay, also non as oil sand. Not the same.

2. Accidents happen. You will never find a 100% save way to provide any factory, city or household with the necessary energy. wind mills kill white eagles and taint amazing landscapes, and whoosh the silence in nearby towns; solar panels would hardly stand hailstones or dust storms or even bird droppings...

Share on Myspace