Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I appreciate your comments.
I wasn't able to verify that the proposed pipeline route already has 25,000 miles, but I WAS able to verify, through a neutral source, that this country already has a total 409,000 miles
of oil and gas pipelines, a number that is much higher than any of us would guess.
I also can't verify that those 25,000 miles of pipeline have not had a leak since 1978, but it's a fact that the Trans-Alaska pipeline itself has had a few leaks, the largest of which was 16,000 barrels, which would cover quite a few
The existing Keystone pipeline has had TWELVE leaks in the last 12 months, so I'd have to admit that I've not very excited about the prospect of a southern extension crossing the second largest fresh water aquifer in the world (the Ogallala Aquifer). A lot of folks aren't aware that the Keystone pipeline already exists in America, but Phase 3 and Phase 4 are the portions that have generated the most controversy.http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ogallala-aquifer-6531527http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
Significantly, the worst oil spill arising out of the Trans-Alaska pipeline is an INDIRECT loss - a ship called the Exxon Valdez spilled 750,000 barrels in 1989. Until the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe of last year, the Exxon Valdez was the worst oil spill in history.
House Speaker John Boehner is currently under investigation by the SEC for ethics violation.
Quite by coincidence, he has investments in 7 companies that are involved in Canadian tar sands operations, and would profit PERSONALLY if the damn thing got built:http://www.politicususa.com/en/john-boehner-resign
it's always good to have friends in high places, so it probably didn't hurt the oil and gas industry to donate over $180,000 to John Boehner's 2012 re-election campaign .. http://checksandbalancesproject.org/tag/john-boehner/
The House Speaker is perfectly willing to talk to any of us - as long as we live in the 6th Congressional District of Michigan. If we don't, the message from his website is that we can all just "take a hike".
As you might suspect, any group remotely connected to saving the environment is adamantly opposed to the Keystone pipeline, so it's instructive to rely on a source that historically takes a conservative viewpoint on topics, the Washington Post. As the link below indicates, even the Post takes a dim view of the Keystone pipeline:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-jobs-cl...
Mother Jones, as you might expect, also thinks the pipeline is a dumb idea, but it's also a publication that, to borrow a phrase, gives a shit about the environment. More telling, though, is the Reuters link in the same article that mentions that the cost of the Keystone extension will be $7 billion. I'm of the opinion that that $7 billion would be better spent on improvements in our crumbling infrastructure and/or green technology instead of technology that dates back to the day of Spindetop Hill, which first erupted 100 years ago.
Since our #1 export in 2011 was fuel, it's much more likely that the "tar sands oil" WILL go to China instead of to the United States, and that's perfectly fine. The BEST way to become free of imported oil is to rapidly increase our energy efficiency so that our reliance on imported oil drops from 65% (half of which comes from Canada) to a much more reasonable level.