The Keystone Conundrum

At first glance, a recent article on the Austin AmericanStatesmen website commentaries written by Texas Railroad Commission member, Barry Smitherman in support of the recently proposed Keystond XL Pipeline would have you believe that it is more than a good idea to allow said pipeline to be built, but upon further investigation it is evident that it is a flawed argument which does not take into account a great number of factors. As a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, one cannot help but call into question the motifs of the author. Since the RRC is responsible for regulating the oil industry, it becomes apparent that Barry Smitherman could possibly stand to make a substantial amount of money if the Keystone XL Pipeline is approved for completion. Although his agenda might be a bit questionable, there is little confusion about the intended audience, as he directly states his desire for "all Americans" to support the pipeline and calls for them to act by voicing their opinions to the Obama administration. Although broad, Smitherman leaves the possibility of converting any possible rejecting special interest groups, or even "anti-pipeline-ists" completely open by attempting to appeal to any and all citizens of the country, who (starting this week) will have the opportunity to be heard about their views on the pipeline.

The author contends that the pipeline would be very safe as he refers to it as a “new, high-tech crude-oil highway”, but doesn’t really provide much tangible evidence of such a claim.  The author also goes on to provide a large range of dollar figures that he thinks are benefits of the deal but does not provide a source for that information nor is there any clear timeline provided to explain in how long a span we can expect the listed “benefits” to occur to completion.  Another major selling point of the argument is that we (as the title suggests) “need” this pipeline to help wean the US away from our dependence on foreign oil.  I remain conflicted about this point because I feel that even with that end goal in mind, it could possible make more sense to provide more funding for further research in other sources of renewable energy so that we may curb our need for oil as a whole one day. While there is no doubt that we should try to focus on having a future where we don’t depend on the exports of countries where stability isn’t the norm, it also appears to me that this pipeline would only be a quick fix to the overall problem.

The article concludes, stating bluntly, that “Keystone XL is good for the US and it’s good for Texas”. I do not agree with this statement because, although the author attempts to list a number of economic benefits to the state and country, it does not take into account the enormous cost when the pipeline inevitably ruptures. The pipeline, if approved, would have to pass through the Ogallala aquifer, a major source of both drinking and farming water for at least eight states it passes through. While this pipeline could payoff economically in several ways, it also could potentially be the worst large-scale industrial disaster since the Japanese earthquake that caused its nuclear power plant to meltdown (a disaster who’s entire ecological impact cannot even yet be determined as it is still ongoing).

The idea that building another (and not to mention rather ambitious) pipeline to pump crude oil is going to one day help the US be free from the addiction to oil is somewhat paradoxical. Surely there are smarter ways to spend the "$20 billion private-sector investment" necessary for the pipeline that could provide more long-term solutions to our worlds ever-growing energy problem. While this argument implies that initially many would be employed to help with the construction of the pipeline (therefore creating more jobs), it is impossible to quantify the amount of damage the pipeline stands to cause when it does rupture, as other, less-extensive pipelines ultimately have in the past.