vivian maxine wrote:ronjanec, correct me if I am - once more - misinformed. I did not think the oil going through this pipeline was ours (ours being USA oil). It was my understanding that we will be piping Canadian oil to Texas where it will then be exported to other countries and we will be paid a pittance for allowing our cousins to the north to ship across our states to the Gulf.
At least that was how I read it way back when the fussing first started. Wrong?
Sadly, it is a lot more complicated than that and includes decades of political spin and regional wrangling n Canada. This is the tar sands crud from northern Alberta. It was long known about but wasn't economically viable untl relatively recently when the price of oil went up (for many reasons). It is relatively easy to extract but it is very dirty and expensive to process or move to be processed. Canada has now approved construction of three pipelines, two to the west coast of B.C. where it can be shipped elsewhere in the world for processing (especially Asia, i.e., China probably). Bascially whoever pays best. The Keystone adds a third route, down to Texas for refining and another, fourth, pipeline to eastern Canada for refining or shipping, is in progress.
The Keystone is argued to be good for Canada because it does allow for relatively safe (for Canada) and low cost transport outside Canada's borders to a good customer (the US). It is good for the US in that it will allow relatively safe access (not much chance Canada would militarily or politically block access and create jobs refining down in Texas (plus temp jobs building the pipeline and a few maintaining). The down side for the US is if there is a spill, most likely it will be somewhere in the US and not pollute Canadian soil (the other pipelines involve longer distances). And refining that stuff will create some nasty pollution - but that is down n Texas so who cares?
There is a lot of political dogma and hyperbola with not many telling many truths. Those opposed to this or any pipeline are basically against any exploitation of the Alberta tar sands crud because of the unavoidable pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, danger from inevitable spills, etc. but it also has to do with arguments about the pipeline(s) crossing private property, including or especially native lands. Arguments in favour include that these concerns are exaggerated, there will be jobs created, North Americans will get some cheap and safely supplied gas and oil (without giving money to countries we don't like), American companies will makes lots of money and some governments (e.g., Alberta and Canada in general) will get lots of tax dollars.
But is gets wilder than this simple summary.