Gore and Keystone XL

Jan. 7, 2014
I greatly enjoy all I learn from reading Oil & Gas Journal. But I never agree with any of your opinions expressed in "The Editor's Perspective."

I greatly enjoy all I learn from reading Oil & Gas Journal. But I never agree with any of your opinions expressed in "The Editor's Perspective." That is, until I read your perspective on Al Gore's opinion about the Keystone XL pipeline and whether the pipeline should be permitted to go forward and be constructed (OGJ, Nov. 4, 2013, p. 128).

I strongly disagree with your lack of concern about global warming. But Mr. Gore's idea that somehow the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline is an "atrocity, a threat to our future," is wrong for several reasons. And, yes, I agree with you that the Keystone XL is good for Canadians and Americans for the reasons you stated. But to address Mr. Gore's theory that global warming will be affected by the pipeline I have the following comments:

  1. To believe that the Canadian citizens and government are any less concerned about environmental problems than Americans are is wrong and even a canard.
  2. The Canadian government has taken many steps related to production of bitumen from oil sands to reduce emissions and other environmental harm.
  3. As a Democrat, one only needs to look at how sensible, wonderful, and lower-cost to society is the Canadian health-care system than is that of the US. This is true even if you believe that Obamacare is a step forward, as I do.
  4. Extraction of bitumen from the oil sands will continue, virtually unchanged, whether or not Keystone XL is approved.
  5. The US has a free-trade agreement with Canada, which requires that Canadian oil and its products are admissible into the US and, of course, vice versa.
  6. To go to the heart of why Mr. Gore is wrong, the failure to approve Keystone XL will substantially increase carbon dioxide and other emissions into US air. This is because, in lieu of the pipeline, bitumen and bitumen-related products are, and in ever-increasing amounts will be, transported to the US via tanker trucks and, especially, railroad tank-car trains. Once it is constructed the emissions from the Keystone XL pipeline will be approximately zero. But the emissions from the importation of bitumen and bitumen-related products via trucks and rail are and will be immense and growing over the future. And in the short term, I believe, oil from the Bakken shale in North Dakota will be added to and included in the Keystone XL system. This oil is currently unable to leave North Dakota by pipeline and is hence "exported" in trucks and by rail. These "exports" are increasing emissions compared to emissions from the use of a pipeline.

Philip Rummel
Chicago