This page was last updated on February 23, 2012.
Pipeline not needed; Chloe Hedrick; Beaver County Times; February 19, 2012.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject opinion piece.
“In regard to, ‘We need oil pipeline,’ I do not believe that this is necessary. Another oil pipe line would only make our society worse.
“We already have enough problems with gas and oil prices going up as it is. Whose [sic] to say Canada wouldn’t raise the prices given the opportunity?”
[RWC] Ms. Hedrick appears to be unaware Canada is already our largest foreign supplier of crude oil by a wide margin and most (all?) of it comes via pipeline.
How does purchasing oil from a friendly next-door neighbor present a problem “with gas and oil prices?” Oil prices go up and down with the market. I don’t believe anyone expects Canada to sell us oil at a discount. In any case, is it better to get oil via pipeline from a friendly next-door neighbor or via ship from less-than-friendly country thousands of miles away?
“Going green is the best option for our country; we have the technology to make all of the adjustments, but there is no push to make it happen.”
[RWC] Technological viability matters only when the technology is also economically viable. By “economically viable” I mean the ability to compete in the marketplace without subsidies, tax credits, et cetera.
“We have oil lines all around the world as it is; it doesn’t make sense to make more. China already has enough power over us and we have millions of dollars worth of debt to that country.”
[RWC] When you want to get oil from point A to point B and there is no existing pipeline to do that, it doesn’t matter if “[w]e have oil lines all around the world as it is.”
Ms. Hedrick was off by about three to six orders of magnitude when she wrote “we have millions of dollars worth of debt to [Red China].” Red China currently holds a little north of $1 trillion of U.S. government debt, about 25% of debt held by foreign countries. In any case, what does this have to do with the Keystone XL Pipeline? The pipeline is a private-sector project, not a government undertaking.
“I understand that jobs are scarce and money is tight, but jobs can be made by going green also. Wind power is a big harness of energy and it takes hundreds of people to run those systems and put them together. Also, we could use running natural water from rivers, or ever furthering the sciences of atom splitting to generate mass amounts energy. If we are trying to save our planet for the generations to come we cannot rely on oil.”
[RWC] Ms. Hedrick appears to be unaware hydroelectric and nuclear power are out of vogue with the “going green” crowd. As soon as “green” energies get close to commercial viability, they are no longer deemed “green.” We’ve seen this already with some hydro, wind, and solar projects.
Finally, I’ve written before I have no problem with “green” energies and I encourage their use when it makes economic sense. This is the same position I take with all forms of energy production. What I take issue with is pinning our present and future solely on “green” energies while tying our hands behind our back regarding domestic production of coal, natural gas, nuclear, and oil-based energy. Instead, we need to let the marketplace do its job without government interference beyond that deemed necessary by limited-government principles.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.