Pages

Friday, April 20, 2012

An Open Letter to President Obama(Keystone Pipeline)

I was very impressed with this letter. It was a comment on an article I had read and it pretty much sumes up the way I feel.  An article that I have posted talks about the other pipelines that are found in that same area. If so why do we need another pipeline, why not tap into one that exists. We have done so much harm to the earth, as it is, do we need to kill it and our chances for survival.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Dear President Obama:

During your election campaign in 2008, you spoke eloquently about the need for a "new energy future," one unencumbered by addiction to foreign oil and marked by investment in "alternative" sources of energy, such as solar power, wind turbines, geothermal power and wave generation. You vowed that, if elected President, you would push strongly for investment in these areas. You reiterated this point again in the powerful State of the Union address that you delivered in 2010.
Throughout your Presidency, you have repeatedly claimed that, although fossil fuels and nuclear power are, in your view, parts of the energy picture for the foreseeable future, you are a strong believer in and advocate for the development of energy alternatives, not only in order to decrease America's dependence on foreign oil, and not just because of the enormous potential for jobs and economic growth that investment in the alternative energy sector could provide, but also because of the necessity of reducing, immediately and drastically, the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels. Global warming is an urgent problem of global proportions, as you argued during your election campaign, and as you have repeated at times during your presidency. Your action requiring American car manufacturers to raise fuel efficiency standards is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and a significant move in the right direction.
That brings me to the Keystone XL pipeline for transporting bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to Texas to be refined.
Bitumen, or "tar," is a viscous, sticky oil-like substance that has been used for centuries as an adhesive and building material, but not as oil, because it is not the same as crude oil. To be burned like oil it first needs to be mixed with lighter hydrocarbons. It is nothing like "light sweet crude," the oil in reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. The process of transforming bitumen into liquid fuel requires energy for steam injection and refining, a process which generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the "production" of conventional oil.
Alberta's "tar sands" contain something like 85% of the world's reserves of bitumen, an amount that equals the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil. This kind of resource has only recently become thought of as profitable. It requires huge inputs of energy and water, but as conventional crude becomes more scarce, it will undoubtedly only become more profitable to extract unconventional oil and natural gas.
The reason why we have come to this point is because we have passed the era of peak oil. That is to say, global production of conventional oil has peaked and is now on the decline. We have passed through the era of easy oil - reserves that could be tapped simply by drilling into the ground, and releasing the pressure holding the oil in place - and into the era of difficult oil. This is why we are now drilling for oil 5 miles beneath the surface of the ocean, which is what led to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This is why the government of Canada is now so actively pursuing the extraction of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands.
But Canada has no refineries capable of transforming bitumen from the tar sands into usable liquid oil anywhere near where the resource lies, beneath Alberta's boreal forests. Hence, the Keystone XL pipeline project, to bring the bitumen to the refineries of Texas to be transformed into a product the oil companies can transport and sell.
For months, thousands of Americans of every political persuasion bombarded the White House with demands that you reject this pipeline, which would carry the oil through the Ogalalla Aquifer, the groundwater resource accessed by eight U.S. states, from South Dakota to Texas, for drinking water. The project has been opposed by Republican governors, ranchers, farmers and civilians of every kind, as well as many environmental groups. Of course, you have also been lobbied intensely by the Canadian government and by oil industry representatives, for this project to go forward.
Many breathed a huge sigh of relief when, a month ago, you declared no decision on the pipeline this year. Now, however, it seems that, thanks to your political opponents in Congress, the issue has been raised from the dead and you must, again, issue a decision on it in the near future.
When considering what decision to make, keep in mind that this project isn't just about job creation or the economy. Yes, it would create a relatively small number of short-term jobs, and yes, it would increase profits for the oil industry, which some feel convinced somehow benefits everyone else as well. But it would also create, not just temporarily, but in the long term and for the foreseeable future, a drastic increase in greenhouse gas emissions just when we need to be working hard to achieve the exact opposite.
More to the point, approval of this pipeline represents a strong and enduring commitment to the very sources of dirty energy that you so eloquently and forcefully argued against as a presidential candidate.
This is a watershed moment.
If, as many Americans have loudly and clearly demanded, you stand by your promise to veto this project, you will reinforce your commitment to a clean energy future and a definitive move away from reliance on foreign oil.
If, on the other hand, you cave to the pressure of oil industry lobbyists and political calculations, you risk not just losing the support of Americans concerned about the environment that carried you into office, but also the health of our natural resources and the balance of the global climate. Make the right choice.
Sincerely,
Seth Needler

Professor of Environmental Science
Portland Community College
Portland, Oregon

No comments:

Post a Comment