BAKKEN BREAKOUT • January 2012
Page 5
By Brian Kroshus, Bismarck Tribune Publisher
rom extraction to consumption, oil has certainly had its share of challenges on
both the political and environmental fronts. As is the case with the TransCanada Corporation’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the two often run in tandem with one another creating the backdrop for considerable debate and disagreement.
Several weeks ago President Obama denied the permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline citing environmental concerns. Although the project isn’t dead, it could now be delayed until after the 2012 presidential election. It is seemingly yet another example of the current administration’s failure to recognize the true dynamics of the global marketplace
we live in. If national security is in fact a priority as it ought to be, we should conduct business with countries that are stable and reducing — instead of increasing — our reliance on crude oil supplies originating from the Middle East in particular.
The strategic importance of Canadian oil reserves to America cannot be understated. Canadian tar sands oil, the world’s second-largest petroleum deposit, is a readily available supply of energy for our country. Situated only a stone’s throw away from our border it helps satisfy the high demand for crude in our country. Delaying construction and failing to act on this key pipeline initiative until after the Presidential election makes little sense, outside of potentially assisting the
President in his reelection bid.
The victory felt by environmental groups might also be equally shared by the Chinese who will be the likely recipient of the diverted oil supply. Without the pipeline, Canadian crude will instead make its way to the west coast before shipment to China where it will be refined and used by a country that desperately wants to grow and replace the United States as the new super power in the world. More troubling is how the latest ruling may affect U.S.-Canadian relationships; the decision won’t be popular with our northerly neighbors.
One argument against tar sands oil is that it is heavier and more difficult to refine than lighter, higher quality oil supplies
like those extracted in the Williston Basin of North Dakota. Even so, the reality is that while tar sands oil increases carbon emissions by an estimated 5-15 percent they will be used regardless and their influence on global warming by use in the United States would be minimal at best representing only 1 percent of our annual consumption.
Tar Sands oil generating higher carbon emissions then becomes a moot point since again it will be used by somebody. In this case that somebody is an energy hungry China that has vast financial resources in which to purchase Canadian crude. At the same time the president was preparing to deny the permitting of the Keystone XL, the Canadian natural resources minister was in Asia working
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68