“The Keystone XL pipeline proposal has been reviewed intensively by federal agencies and has been shown to be safe, environmentally sound and in America’s national interest.”
Charles T. Drevna
President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA)
November 9, 2011
From The Washington Post
“The bottom line remains: The more American refineries source their low-grade crude via pipeline from Canada and not from tankers out of the Middle East or Venezuela, the better, even if not every refined barrel stays in the country.” (Editorial, “Keystone XL pipeline is the wrong target for protesters,” The Washington Post, October 10, 2011 [emphasis added]).
“Chinese firms are already buying stakes in Canadian oil sands production, and projects are planned or underway to increase exports from Alberta to Asia. Even if everything works out the way environmentalists would like and Canadian oil continues to be "shut-in," America and others will simply import and refine similar-grade crude from other sources, particularly the Middle East, the report concludes.” (Editorial, “Say yes to the Keystone pipeline: Why a Canada-to-Texas pipeline should go through,” The Washington Post, February 5, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From USA Today
“The right answer on the Keystone pipeline is yes. The decision isn't just one of necessity. Criticism of the 1,700-mile pipeline is overblown. For example, opponents assert that its route across the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska is risky because a spill could do catastrophic damage to that water supply. But critics ignore the fact that 2,000 miles of oil pipeline already cross the aquifer there. A Nebraska hydrogeologist who has studied the subsurface water formation for 40 years says even if there were a spill, the impact would be modest and containable. For a 35-mile stretch where the water table is close to the surface, the pipeline builder has offered to surround the line with concrete.” (Editorial, “Editorial: Say yes to building the Keystone oil pipeline,” USA Today, Oct 27, 2011 [emphasis added]).
“The Keystone expansion would provide an extra 500,000 barrels of oil a day from a secure ally and neighbor, enabling the U.S. to offset declining supplies from Mexico and Venezuela and avoid having to reach out to less-stable oil exporters. At a time of rising gasoline prices and turmoil in the Middle East, the U.S. is in no position to be finicky about its oil imports.” (Editorial, “Our view: Allow Keystone oil pipeline expansion,” USA Today, March 17, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From The Wall Street Journal
“As Winston Churchill once quipped about America, so it often goes with the Obama Presidency: You can count on it to do the right thing—after it's tried everything else. Yesterday's State Department decision to move one step forward with the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico would illustrate the point—except it's still trying everything else.” (Editorial, “The Politics of a Pipeline,” The Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2011 [emphasis added]).
“Take the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline running from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. It would create tens of thousands of new jobs in construction, maintenance and refining. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supports the project, yet regulatory hurdles remain. States like Nebraska, whose approval is overdue, need to get on board with Secretary Clinton and help push this massive jobs creation project through.” (Op-ed by former Congressman Harold Ford Jr., “Where the Jobs Are,” The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2011 [emphasis added]).
“If Mr. Obama were drawing up a plan from scratch to boost union employment and deflate Iranian-ally Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, it might look like the Keystone XL. TransCanada estimates that building the pipeline will mean more than $20 billion $13 billion from TransCanada itself in investment and 13,000 new American jobs in construction and related manufacturing. The company also expects more than 118,000 "spin-off" jobs during the two years of construction.” (Editorial, “Jobs in the Pipeline,” The Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From the Baton Rouge Advocate
“We can’t do away with greenhouse gas production in America’s economy anytime soon. To block the pipeline is a one-sided score in a game that doesn’t calculate benefits and losses to the environment and society as a whole.” (Editorial, “Our Views: Move ahead on oil pipeline,” The Advocate, October 31, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From the Journal Star, Lincoln
“The review of Keystone XL has been thorough, exhaustive and independent. To suggest otherwise without any facts is nothing more than speculative gossip which does not serve any purpose to readers who are clamoring for an honest review of Keystone XL.” (Op-ed by Robert Jones, “Guest View: Keystone XL review thorough, independent,” Journal Star, October 22, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From The New York Times
“If areas of the Ogallala were exposed to leaks from the pipeline, the highly varied layers within the rock formation itself would serve to localize the impact of a spill.” (Op-ed by James Goeke, “The Truth about Aquifers,” The New York Times, October 4, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From The Beaumont Enterprise
“Yet critics have never shown why this pipeline would be any more dangerous than the thousands of pipelines that crisscross the United States. Many of those pipelines carry petroleum or chemical products that could cause major problems if spilled, yet the overall pipeline safety record remains strong.” (Editorial, “Editorial: Pipeline route to Gulf Coast needs OK,” The Beaumont Enterprise, October 26, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From The Billings Gazette
“We call on the president to support this project for a safer, more dependable source of oil and for the construction jobs that it would start generating next year.” (Editorial, “Gazette opinion: Build pipeline to supply U.S. with friendly fuel,” The Billings Gazette, October 2, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From The Bismarck Tribune
“It would be our hope that the State Department would give TransCanada the go ahead on its $7 billion pipeline and that, in turn, BakkenLink would decide to expand its project to its original scope -- 250-miles of pipeline connecting North Dakota's oil patch with the Keystone XL.” (Editorial, “Lack of certainty hurts state’s energy industry,” The Bismarck Tribune, August 9, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From The Topeka Capital-Journal
“The green energy industries — wind, solar and biofuels — still are maturing in this country and must become much more readily available before the U.S. can turn its nose up at oil close at hand in an unstable world.” (Editorial, “Allow Keystone expansion,” The Topeka Capital-Journal The Topeka Capital-Journal, October 8, 2011 [emphasis added]).
From The Journal Record, Tulsa
“We favor alternative energy – compressed natural gas, wind, solar, hydrogen – or any source, including plain old domestic crude, that doesn’t require a deeper commitment to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and Venezuela.” (Editorial, “Editorial: Build the pipeline,” The Journal Record, October 12, 2011 [emphasis added]).