Keystone XL Pipeline

There recently has been a lot of controversy over a proposed oil pipeline running from Canada to Texas. Coverage of the movements against the pipeline have been smothered by Occupy Wall Street, which is a seemingly indomitable media force. Regardless, the resistance has been fierce - at one point protestors circled the White House, demanding that the project be scrapped - and the White House and Obama recently caved, calling for the State Department to further investigate the proposed pipeline before approving it. It is a controversial issue, and one that features two typical combatants in today's economy: environmentalists vs. businessmen. Which side are you on?

At first, I was skeptical of the public outrage, fearing that it was a product of misplaced passion which lacked full knowledge of the details of the pipeline. The clear benefits of the pipeline also made it difficult for me to comprehend why anyone would fight its development. For an opening point, the pipeline would help provide a significant and consistent source of oil from a friendly, neighboring country, rather than the often semi-hostile Mid-Eastern countries. Valid theories abound that our wars in the Middle-East are motivated at least in part by oil interests. Building a pipeline would help the US withdraw from foreign oil investments, disentangling us from messy middle-eastern governments and insurgency groups. And what about high oil prices? Gas is very expensive, and its rising prices are oft-quoted as a rising problem for middle to low income families, who cannot afford to spend more at the pump. In addition, high oil prices have been cited as an element which could damage our economy and dampen the already slow, if not non-existent, recovery. (On a side note, maybe environmentalists should desire high oil prices. This would shift consumers towards more eco-friendly and environmentally sustainable resources, and away from dirty fossil fuels.) This spike in price has been caused by a spike in demand and a constant supply curve. In short, the scarcity of oil has increased, due to an increased disparity between demand and supply. If all goes well, the Keystone XL pipeline would drastically increase our oil supply, and in doing so would drop the price of gas. As an added perk, a pipeline is one of the more effecient and cheap ways to transport oil.  The last benefit is the most over-used term in all of economics: "job-creation". So in short, allowing the pipeline to continue would increase our supply of oil, drop oil prices by increasing supply, increase our energy security, saving lives by decreasing our foreign interests, and create American, yes, American, jobs while simultaneously boosting Canada's export economy and providing them jobs. 

Now for the counter-argument. The company running the pipeline has a terrible spill record, with something around 12 spills attributed to them over the past year. This is inexcusable, especially given that the pipeline will run directly underneath one of the main fresh-water reservoirs in the United States. In the event of a spill, adding more chemicals to neutralize other chemicals and clean the water is unappealing at best. But didn't an independent third-party company review the project and its safety merits, and approve it? Unfortunately, a little research into this statement and you will find that the company hired by the US government to assess the project is basically a subsidiary of the company building the Keystone pipeline. The conflict of interest is immense, almost entirely discrediting the "objective" analysis which legitimized this project. The final point is that tar sands extraction releases 19 percent more carbon emissions into the air than Mid-Eastern crude oil, contributing to global climate change. To be honest, this side has a more compelling argument than I would have expected. The risk of contaminating a major US aquifer is the most worrying aspect to consider. 

Should we build it? 

Despite the draw-backs, which are both legitimate and great, the Keystone XL pipeline should be allowed to continue, though only after further investigation and effective regulation to mitigate dangers. I support its final construction, but currently find it hard to support because of the compromised analysis of its safety and the company's record of spills. I support the pipeline, but the protestors have a valid point. Let's wait for a more comprehensive analysis, then build.