The recent article about the Washington protests against the Keystone pipeline raises some questions and merits some comments (“Thousands rally at White House against pipeline,” Nov. 7).

The headline stated that “Thousands rally.” Is that 1,001 or 100,000?

The protesters seem concerned about possible oil spills. Does any protester have objective data on the likelihood of a spill from a high-tech pipeline?

Has even one of them compared the likelihood of a pipeline spill with that of a tanker spill? If the pipeline is not built, there will be ever more tankers, thus increasing the likelihood of a tanker spill.

With the economy in the state that it is, how important are the more than 20,000 jobs that the pipeline project would create? All would be high paying construction, operations and maintenance jobs. To say nothing about the accompanying boost to the economy from increases in property taxes, supplier jobs, etc.

The pipeline would reduce the need for Middle Eastern oil by 1 million barrels per day. Who do we want to pay for oil? Saudi Arabia or Canada?

Most significantly, what do the protesters propose as an alternative to the oil that would be brought here in the pipeline? Wind or solar? That is not feasible for decades.

Finally, if the protesters want to stop the production of tar sands oil, stopping this pipeline won’t do it. The oil will be produced. If the oil doesn’t come here, it will go to China.

 

Copy the Story Link

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Related Stories
Latest Articles