Stop the pipeline, Stand with Randy or end foreign oil dependence?
It can all be confusing. This is the best story I’ve read summarizing the whole debate. You should read it, too.
4 Comments
Post a comment
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
By Deena Winter
Deena has been a journalist for some 25 years, writing for papers as small as the Northwood Gleaner (yes, Gleaner) and as large as the Denver Post. She wrote this blog in 2010-2011. Today she is a freelance journalist and nascent junker in St. Paul, MN.
Winterized 
Deena,
I appreciate you covering this issue. I did want to point that I’m pretty sure Canada’s not part of the US. So, tar sands from the Keystone XL=foreign oil.
And another note, the tar sands will be refined in Texas and sold on an international market. They are not guaranteed for the US, so claims that the Keystone XL will make us energy independent are simply not true.
This article is hardly an objective pro and con discussion of the debate. Of course, there was
dangers to be considered and guarded against but these have not stopped drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or stopped tankers of transporting oil in sensitive waters. We have to be mindful of
truth and fiction on both sides of an issue and make a rational decision. I know someone who
has accepted money from Keystone and now is against it because she says she will get to keep the money if it fails. How many of the rest of the landowners are morally in question?
There are many alternatives to oil such a cold fusion see: http://uralica.com/cold_fusion.htm
Seems an awful long way to move the oil. Why not just build refineries for 7 billion in Canada?