The future of Keystone XL pipeline is still up in the air after some seven years of controversy over whether or not the mineral transportation facility should be completed from oil fields in Canada to refineries in Texas.
In fact, our President Obama has even denied his support of whether or not the project should be carried through to its desired completion.
Why not carry through on a plan that makes the transportation of oil safer than any other way, especially than the transportation of such volatile minerals by truckloads and tank cars on our public highways and rail lines?
The explosions and burnings of such trucks and tank cars getting into wrecks have already caused much havoc during past years. A pipeline would put at rest any question of the best way to transport oil and other such inflammables.
Many miles of pipelines have been developed in the recent past that have brought about making the availability of oil and other explosive materials much easier to get. The problem with Keystone XL is the fact that it crosses an international boundary, which requires review by the State Department.
The Keystone pipeline would take oil from tar sands in Canada to Gulf Coast refineries.
Obama says his decision on it would depend partly upon the State Department’s review on whether or not it would contribute to global warming and he is awaiting its report.
It does not seem that how oil is transported by pipeline or railroad cars or trucks would have any effect on global warming.
And it certainly would provide a safer means of transportation by pipeline, which could not be upset by the rugged moving back and forth along railroad tracks and highways.
Many other areas around the country would benefit from the completion of Keystone XL which would make Canadian oil more available to other areas of our continent.
And it seems our president would approve a project that would make such availability much safer.
Be the first to comment