Secretary of State Clinton's State Department Signs Off on Pipeline in Minnesota

http://www.eenews.net/features/documents/2009/08/21/document_cw_01.pdf

On August 20, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department took a major step to ensure Minnesota and the Upper Midwest’s energy security by approving the construction of the Alberta Clipper pipeline from Alberta, Canada, through Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin.

Indicating that there “is no indication” that the pipeline will worsen the impacts of climate change, the State Department has now removed the final barrier for the continued construction of the 1,000-mile Alberta Clipper pipeline.

Despite a predictable negative reaction from reactionary elements in the environmental community and assurances by President Obama that new technologies for processing the oil sands are on the way, the anti-gasoline lobby threatened lawsuits.

It is interesting to note that a real crack seems to be developing between President Obama’s administration and many environmental groups. The President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her State Department seem to have decided that energy security and good-paying, ready-to-go pipeline jobs matter in the environmental equation. Good for them.

A State Department analysis (see link below) says the pipeline will help prevent China and other countries from buying Canadian crude, a product valuable to the United States because it is derived without the security complications associated with Middle Eastern nations. So, Minnesota, the Upper Midwest, and the United States benefit and some of our Middle Eastern enemies lose. Sounds logical to me, and I am hardly a military hawk but I am loyal to my country. It is one of my many biases. We are not perfect but this is our country and we have to look out for our collective interests because Middle Eastern oil producers will not!

According to Enbridge Inc., a Canadian oil company, the pipeline will allow them to increase its U.S.-bound flow of oil sands crude by 450,000 barrels a day, beginning next year. Additional pumping stations could be added in the future at "very low cost" to increase the daily flow to 800,000 barrels, the company says.

Next week, part II on oil sands.

Turning Our Backs on Canada?

An emerging issue that sits at the crossroads of energy and environmental policy, and one that could have profound consequences for Minnesota, is the debate about the development of the Canadian oil sands. A recent New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/business/07oilsands.html?_r=3&ref=busi) highlights the issues at the heart of this debate.


The Canadian oil sands represent a vital resource in bolstering our country's energy security. Because of the oil sands, Canadian crude oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia. For Minnesota, Canadian crude oil currently supplies over 80 percent of the oil that is refined into transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel.


However, some environmental groups in the U.S. and Canada want to halt oil sands production, arguing that the environmental impacts are too great. They believe that cutting off the U.S. market from this resource will help in their efforts to stop oil sands production.


It is foolish to think that by not using this resource in the U.S., the oil sands won't be developed. This view ignores the reality that energy use in developing countries is set to grow exponentially in the future. The article notes that the pipeline network in Canada only takes oil sands production south to the U.S. That may be true today, but it will not be true in the future if the U.S. market is cut off. Canadian crude oil will still be used and the next logical destination is developing countries like China and India that have less efficient industry and lower environmental standards. Meanwhile, the U.S. will have to rely even more on the Middle East for its crude oil supply.


As Canada's largest trading partner and consumer of its oil, we should be working with them and the oil sands industry, not against them, to address environmental concerns while not compromising energy security. Improvements have been made to lessen the environmental impact of oil sands production. We need constructive solutions, not policy threats, that realistically account for our energy needs while working to improve the environment.