No Unnecessary Delays on Keystone XL

By Mark Green

Wednesday July 27, 2011--Why not just wait? That's the administration's response to House legislation that would require a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline by Nov. 1. The administration says its Dec. 31 deadline is soon enough. But, considering the project's vast economic and energy benefits, here's a better question: Why wait any longer than necessary?

Why wait on jobs - 20,000 U.S. jobs during the 1,700-mile pipeline's construction phase alone? Why unnecessarily delay, by even a week, a $13 billion project the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) says will help fully utilize Canada's oil sands--projected to support 600,000 new U.S. jobs by 2035 and more than $775 billion (Canadian dollars) in GDP from 2010 to 2035?

At the same time, why wait on bringing more oil from our No. 1 foreign supplier? Why unnecessarily delay a project that will bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day to U.S. refineries? Why not take steps now that will secure America's energy future, one in which 92 percent of our liquid fuel needs would be supplied by the U.S. and Canada by 2030?

Opponents say a State Department decision on approving the project shouldn't be rushed, that there are questions about its safety and reliability. Nonsense. The Keystone XL has been studied and debated for going on three years - compared to the normal approval process of 18 months to two years. API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin spoke to reporters this week:

"There's been extensive review, extensive opportunities for state and local governments, environmentalists and landowners all along the pipeline to voice their concerns. ... It is time to move forward so that we can create jobs and further strengthen our relationship with America's number one trading partner and number one source of imported oil, Canada."

Why wait? There are compelling arguments against unnecessary delay. New jobs and secure energy await a decision that is taking too long already. Questions have been answered, concerns addressed. The pipeline will feature state-of-the-art technology, will deliver oil like the oil already flowing through existing pipelines and will be well-monitored.

Editor: What could possibly go wrong??

Finally, let's be candid: Canada's vast oil sands resource is going somewhere, Keystone XL or no Keystone XL. China is signaling interest. If the United States doesn't want this oil, it'll have no trouble finding a taker. We need the jobs and the energy.

Durbin remarks, "At a time of stubborn unemployment when Americans across the country are clamoring for work, even contemplating saying no to this project should be out of the question."

Naomi Klein on Environmental Victory

Naomi Klein on Environmental Victory: Obama Delays Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Decision Until 2013.

Environmental activists are claiming victory after the Obama administration announced last Thursday it will postpone any decision on the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline until 2013.

The announcement was made just days after more than 10,000 people encircled the White House calling on President Obama to reject the project, the second major action against the project organized by Bill McKibben’s 350.org and Tar Sands Action.

In late August and early September, some 1,200 people were arrested in Washington, D.C., in a two-week campaign of civil disobedience. "We believe that this delay will kill the pipeline,” says the Canadian author and activist Naomi Klein.

“If it doesn’t, if this pipeline re-emerges after the election, people have signed pledges saying they will put their bodies on the line to stop it." Klein notes that, “I don’t think we would have won without Occupy Wall Street.

This is what it means to change the conversation.”