Keystone Pipeline Looms Large for American Energy

The Sunday Washington Post had an in-deph story on Alberta Canada’s oil sands — a black, gooey mixture of sand, oil and water.  This source of oil is the font of the proposed Keystone pipeline and anyone involved in energy is aware that Keystone has become a political pawn this election year. As the Post stated "It is also a sort of Rorschach test of how Americans view energy issues: Are we energy rich or energy poor? How do energy policies affect job creation, tax revenue and U.S. manufacturing competitiveness? How pressing are ¬climate-change concerns, and how do we balance them with economic priorities?"

According to a recent Washington Post poll, the American public is firmly behind the pipeline, seeing potential jobs and limited environmental downside. Nearly six in 10 saying the U.S. government should approve the project with 83 percent who think it will create jobs. Aolmost half believe it will not cause significant damage to the environment.  However, a congressional Research Service report released May 15 estimated that Canada’s oil sands produced 14 to 20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average barrel of U.S. imported crude oil — or comparable to low-quality Venezuelan crudes.  Initial environmental impact studies show huge potential damage to the environment.  Meanwhile, the Canadians are perplexed and wonder why their oil sands are vilified while Americans seem to have no problems getting oil from countries such as Saudia Arabia or Venezuela with poor human rights and no loyalty to United States.