Let the pipeline have its chance

The U.S. State Department has spoken: There are no major environmental objections to the Keystone XL pipeline, adding another clear reason why the project should proceed.

But, ah, not so fast, say environmental groups that are hardly dissuaded from their opposition to the pipeline. The Sierra Club wasted no time in filing a lawsuit this week against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers charging that the corps has withheld information about waterways that the pipeline would cross. Just another salvo in a long running battle.

Still, the Obama administration should get off the fence, and finally approve this project, now that it has some cover with the State Department’s findings. While there are different estimates about how many jobs will be created, it is a $7 billion project that will create jobs, and any and all jobs should be welcome in this country. It has the potential to feed employment at refineries on the Gulf Coast for years to come, and a modern pipeline is arguably safer than alternative modes of transportation.

But folks should be aware of some potential drawbacks. For starters, it is a myth that the pipeline, which would cross through the northeast corner of Montana, will carry crude oil from the Bakken oil fields. That oil is entirely different from the thick “bitumen” oil that is derived from the tar sands in Alberta by TransCanada, the company that has for years been seeking approval for the pipeline from the U.S. government.

The pipeline also comes with some economic risks for TransCanada.

A comprehensive article in a recent edition of Trains Magazine asserts that rail transportation may ultimately be more affordable than the pipeline, partly because of the nature of bitumen oil.

“On the face of it, pipes are a slam-dunk,” the article states. “But a couple of recent analysis show rail with a noticeable cost advantage over pipeline.”

In order to get bitumen to flow through a pipeline, it needs to be diluted with a distillate called diluent.

“Diluent is the box that bitumen comes in and nobody wants,” said one energy engineer. “It just adds transportation costs.”

But the article, like the State Department report, also makes the point that one way or another, tar sands oil is going to be extracted and transported. That’s something that seems to be lost on the multitude of environmental groups that send almost daily e-mail updates to the Inter Lake about the evils of “the dirtiest oil on the planet.”

And why such vehement and relentless opposition? The Keystone XL Pipeline has essentially become a symbolic totem that must be defeated in a climate-change crusade against all forms of fossil fuels on multiple fronts, such as the lawsuits against the Corps of Engineers.

Ironically, denying the pipeline would ensure that tar sands oil reaches the Gulf Coast by rail, trucks or barges — all powered by fossil fuels. Those options could be worse for climate change than a static 1,179-mile pipeline, the report notes.

From our standpoint, justified arguments are dwindling against the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would be just one of hundreds that already criss-cross the country. Oil will be extracted. Oil will be transported. And market forces, along with safety considerations, should guide how that happens rather than misguided obfuscation by the U.S. government.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake editorial board.