WASHINGTON – Now it is official. President Obama announced that he is against the proposed Keystone pipeline that would have allowed Canada to ship oil directly from the Province of Alberta to the Texas refineries. The project has been officially killed.
A symbol
It is no secret that this pipeline had become a target for all the US environmentalists who believe that fossil fuels are bad, if not evil. The argument against this particular project is that it would have delivered an even more potent poison. You see, Canadian oil is extracted from oil sands. The process is messy, and dirty. And it generates more emissions.
Therefore, preventing this pipeline from being built became a crusade.
And now Obama has finally taken a position. It is no wonder that in the end he had to agree with the various environmentalist groups. They are mostly Democrats. Hard to think that he would done anything that would alienate them.
Theological argument
And what about his argument? Well, his argument is based neither on economics nor on any practical energy policy. In fact, it is akin to a theological argument. America is leading the world in the battle against emissions and climate change, Obama said. By approving a project that increases reliance on a particularly dirty form of fossil energy, America would have tarnished its own credentials.
It would have set a bad example, right before the United Nations Conference on Climate Change to be held in Paris on November 30. This will be a major international event in which all countries are supposed to prove how serious they are on combating climate change. Approving a fossil fuels project right before a global forum in which America will encourage others to commit to reducing oil related emissions would have looked bad.
Therefore, this is not about getting more Canadian oil. This is all about politics, ideology and symbolism.
Negligible impact
Let’s make it clear. Whether you are for or against the pipeline, at the end of the day, when it comes to global warming this is a non issue. The fact is that having or not having this pipeline does not move the needle in any special way.
Enhanced energy security
However, it would have been better to approve it for different reasons. The pipeline would have contributed to enhanced US energy security. Indeed, the Keystone pipeline should have been allowed because getting more oil from Canada (as opposed to importing it from OPEC countries in the Persian Gulf) would have added to American energy security. Getting about 800,000 barrel a day from Canada would not have been a revolutionary change. But it would have been a positive incremental step.
And here is why. Notwithstanding the huge increase in US domestic production that took place in the last 5 or 6 years, the US still imports almost 50% of all the oil it consumes. That’s about 9 million barrels a day. This being the case, it would be wise to get more of the oil we absolutely need (until something else will replace it) from Canada, a friendly neighbor, as opposed to importing it from the perennially turbulent Middle East. It is as simple as that.
The Middle East is a mess that we cannot control. Something really bad may happen there; and a major crisis may affect oil flows from the region. Therefore, if we had a choice –and now we do– let’s further reduce our reliance on oil imported from the Gulf region and let’s get more oil from Canada, a friend and an ally.
Is this really so difficult to understand?
No impact on the environment
As for the alleged negative environmental impact, the Obama State Department, technically in charge of all reviews regarding the proposed pipeline, stated that building Keystone would not alter US total emissions in any appreciable way.
Therefore, all considered Obama should have allowed this project to move forward. He did not do this for political reasons. Nothing to do with the merit of the case.
Does it make economic sense?
Now, from a different perspective, one could argue about the wisdom of constructing this new Canada to USA pipeline right at a time in which there is a global oil glut, and oil prices are half what they used to be when people started planning for the Keystone pipeline.
May be it no longer makes economic sense to build it. Fair enough. But this is a business decisions to be made by TransCanada and its partners. It is not up to the President of the United States to decide if a project makes economic sense or not. This project would have been built by a private company, and not by the US Government.
Oil transported by rail
And one more thing. The green movement applauded Obama’s decision as a good way to preserve the environment, while sending a strong message to the fossil fuels lobby: Watch out. We are going to get you”.
But here is the irony. Without the pipeline, substantial amounts of Canadian oil are and will be imported into the United States. This Canadian oil is loaded on trucks or freight trains.
Now, any energy logistics expert would tell you that these modes of transportation are much more dangerous than a modern, state of the art pipeline. As several train wrecks with explosions and fires caused by the oil loaded on rail cars have demonstrated, transporting oil by train can be a real hazard.
The issue was the pipeline
But I guess that trains loaded with oil, occasionally derailing and exploding here and there, are not an issue for the environmentalists.
The issue was the pipeline. And now it has been killed. Victory.