This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Keystone XL Pipeline: It’s About the Jobs, the Economy and Security

Mark Green's picture
, American Petroleum Institute

Mark Green joined API after 16 years as national editorial writer in the Washington bureau of The Oklahoman newspaper, capping a 30-year career in print journalism. At API he is responsible for...

  • Member since 2018
  • 106 items added with 49,982 views
  • Apr 1, 2013

oil pipeline constructionBefore digging into some new misinformation about the job and economic impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline, let’s underscore a figure: 58 percent. That’s the share of likely U.S. voters who favor building the full Keystone XL, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll this week.

In public opinion terms, 58 percent is a slam dunk, a grand slam. Rasmussen says those who strongly favor the Keystone XL outnumber the strongly opposed by nearly three to one. Rasmussen’s finding is consistent with other Keystone XL surveys (Harris Interactive, Fox News, Pew Research). Americans want the full project built.

And they want it built despite more than four years of delay, despite often hysterical opposition from the 10 to 15 percent who’re adamantly against this project – and other pipelines, Canadian oil sands crude, refineries and most likely any fuel source or infrastructure that could provide Americans with reliable, affordable energy. They want it built for simple but important reasons: jobs, economic stimulus and energy security.

Some keep trying to dismiss the jobs and economic lift construction of the full Keystone XL could provide. The folks at Think Progress have a post this week decrying misinformation in the Keystone XL debate but then dispense a good deal of their own rhetorical chaff. Starting with jobs:

“The most recent State Department assessment, written by contractors hired by the pipeline developer, found that constructing the pipeline would create 3,900 temporary jobs, but just 35 permanent jobs.”

Here’s what the U.S. State Department said in its latest Keystone XL review:

“Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the proposed Project would potentially support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1-to 2-year construction period …”

State goes on to describe economic benefits that construction of the full pipeline could generate:

“This employment would potentially translate to approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. Direct expenditures such as construction and materials costs (including construction camps) would total approximately $3.3 billion. Short-term revenues from sources such as sales and use taxes would total approximately $65 million in states that levy such a tax.”

And there’s more:

“Yields from fuel and other taxes could not be calculated, but would provide some additional economic benefit to host counties and states. The proposed Project area does not have sufficient temporary housing for the anticipated construction workforce. Keystone proposes to meet the housing need through a combination of local housing and eight construction camps. Property taxes on these camps would potentially generate the equivalent of one full year of property tax revenue for seven host counties, totaling approximately $2 million.”

These are the benefits that accrue when a construction project of this magnitude gets off the drawing board. This would be real-world growth, for which real-world people – including the skilled men and women of the U.S. construction trades, suffering 16 percent unemployment – have been waiting for more than four years. Sean McGarvey, president of the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trade Department, from earlier this year:

“For the skilled craft professionals that I am privileged to represent, the past four years have not been a recession, they have been a depression. … This has been the most scrutinized infrastructure project, perhaps, in our nation’s history. And at every juncture, concerns about safety and the environment have been met and satisfied. It is now time to build the Keystone XL pipeline and put thousands of Americans back to work.”

As for jobs involved in the operation of the pipeline, let’s not miss the point that a project of this size can stimulate the economy beyond itself. According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, 117,000 new U.S. jobs linked to oil sands development because of the Keystone XL would be created by 2035.

There are other economic benefits, such as trade. The fully completed Keystone XL would change the way Gulf Coast refiners get their oil, and the change is big.

Last year the U.S. imported 331,697,000 barrels of oil worth more than $33 billion from Venezuela. The State Department says oil delivered by the Keystone XL – and remember, 25 percent of the pipeline’s pickup would be U.S. oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota – would likely displace Venezuelan oil. The Keystone XL has contracts in place to ship 555,000 barrels a day from Canada, or more than 202 million barrels a year.

Here’s why it matters whether we get that oil from Canada instead of Venezuela. According to the Census Bureau, in 2012 for every $1 in goods we bought from Venezuela, Venezuela purchased 46 cents worth of goods from us. Yet, in trade with Canada, for every $1 in good we bought from our northern neighbor, they bought 90 cents worth of goods from us – a 44-cent difference.  Figure it out: The potential trade differential from buying slightly more than 202 million barrels of oil from Canada instead of Venezuela is about $9 billion a year in potential U.S. exports. The Commerce Department translates those exports into an additional 48,297 U.S. jobs per year – from buying that amount of crude oil from Canada instead of Venezuela.

Think Progress also takes another shot at the Keystone XL’s economic benefits, saying there’s no guarantee oil delivered by the pipeline will stay in the U.S. after it’s refined into gasoline, diesel and other products. The State Department says that’s unlikely. Even if State is mistaken, the export of finished, more valuable products is a win for the United States. More on that another day.

As for energy security and the Keystone XL, a new Chicago Tribune editorial says it pretty well:

“The U.S. has made great strides toward energy independence, thanks to conservation efforts and an incredible boom in exploration for domestic oil and natural gas. A recent report from Citigroup projected the U.S. could become North American energy independent by 2020. That is, this nation could get all of its energy from the U.S. and Canada. … But those projections depend on the U.S. making the right decisions about supply and consumption. One of those decisions is approval of the Keystone pipeline.”

The benefits of the Keystone XL are clear. They were clear in 2011, they were clear in 2010. They have been clear for more than four years. The facts have been discussed, parsed, researched, studied, reviewed, appraised, examined, reexamined, reviewed and scrutinized. It’s time to approve the full Keystone XL pipeline.

I K's picture
I K on Apr 1, 2013

All infrastructure is good infrastructure, imagine if none of your dams were built because the forefathers of the protestors protested against them. Imagine if none of the railroads were built, if none of the freeways were built, if no airport or ports were built. Everything these days has a protest group against it, hell lets start a protest group to protest against protestors, a good number of the anti KXL group would proabably join

Mark Tracy's picture
Mark Tracy on Apr 1, 2013

So now the the proponents of the XL pipeline are trying to sell it as a jobs program. Where were these libertatian right-wingers four years ago when Obama’s stimulus was creating hundreds of thousands of jobs? (Hint: on the other side). No, we really don’t need this dangerous pipeline — not when the latest projections say that the United States will be energy independent by the end of the decade, due to increased natural gas production and alternative energy production.

I K's picture
I K on Apr 1, 2013

Why do you think you even have a right to dictate to a private company what it should or should not build? Perhaps I should have the right to dictate to you what you can and can not do?

If they were asking for public subsidy then it would be different and your view and everyone in the USA who would be contributing through their taxes should have a say but that isn’t the case.

As long as its safe there is nothing else you or I should be able to do to dictate to them how they should spend their money

If your prediction of the pipeline being unnecessary comes to pass, the builders will have lost out and you can gloat. but its their mistake to make if thats what happens, its not your job to nanny them.

Michael Berndtson's picture
Michael Berndtson on Apr 1, 2013

There’s already an anti-infrastructure group – its called the Republican Party. A pipeline for conveying Canadian tar sands to Port Arthur and other points Texas for delivery to China and elsewhere is not what I call a public good like say high speed rail or universal health care. The US is simply just an earthen stanchion to carry the pipeline for private companies to move a commodity for its own benefit. Not a conveyance to move people to think and do value added things.

I K's picture
I K on Apr 1, 2013

How do you plan to fund your high speed rail or universal healthcare without the taxes evil private individuals and evil private companies pay out of evil profits?

Magic fairy unicorns will provide?

Mark Tracy's picture
Mark Tracy on Apr 1, 2013

Both the private and public landowners upon which the pipeline is to be built must have a voice in the decision whether to build the pipeline. That’s called democracy.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 1, 2013

Mark, does API have a statement on the Mayflower spill?

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Apr 1, 2013

Mark, yes it’s about jobs, the economy and (energy) security.  Unfortunately these are the same issues that the Republican Party ran and lost on last November.  Maybe it’s time to refocus on project benefits that successful politicians won on and are still selling today.  As you have stated in your posts, it’s also about new Federal, State and Local increased revenues (from new property & sales taxes), it’s about reducing the world’s carbon emissions (eliminating higher carbon-increased railroad & marine transport (without the pipeline), and refining the syncrude in much dirtier/less efficient Asian refineries), and better preparing the U.S. for a soon-to-be nuclear Iran (reducing the risk impacts if Iran should shutdown the Strait of Hormuz in the future).

Perhaps it’s about reducing the support for various world terrorist organizations by eliminating the purchasing of oil imports (i.e. funding) from many anti-U.S. governments in South America (Venezuela) and the Middle East (OPEC).  It’s also time to better educate individuals that project economics do not encourage increased syncrude exports as some claim (the Gulf’s on the wrong side of the Panama Canal and the synbit/dilbit crude qualities are consistent with the crude quality requirements of many Midwest U.S. Refiners).  Not only will the Keystone XL benefit the Middle Class by keeping petroleum fuel costs lower than current world market prices, but will better position the U.S. to make the transition from fossil fuels to lower carbon energy sources (i.e. helps ensure a healthy economy needed to pay for more costly renewables in the future).

Michael Berndtson's picture
Michael Berndtson on Apr 1, 2013

Nationalize oil and gas, since its already a cartel and heavily subsidized by governments.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 2, 2013

John, at what point do you believe oil companies will be willing to accomodate this “transition”, i.e. step aside and permit renewables to take away their revenue? What would be their incentive?

Why would the public ever want to spend the fruits of their prosperity on higher electric bills?

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 2, 2013

IK, why should TransCanada have the right to tear your house down and build a pipeline across your property – not for a highway or other project from which the public benefits, but the profit of a foreign corporation?

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 2, 2013

I K, it was the forefathers of the protestors who were building the Hoover Dams and La Guardia Airports during Roosevelt’s New Deal.

It was Republican whiners like William Randolph Hearst and Charles Lindbergh who were against those projects. Of course, those were projects which benefited everyone in the country, not just the “1%”.


Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 2, 2013

 Mark , here are some contradictory polling results from a couple of weeks ago.

This national poll was conducted by Public Policy Polling on March 15, 16 and 17. It included 1,122 voters of all kinds and 536 people who voted for Obama in the 2012 election. The poll has a margin of error of + or – 2.9.

53 percent said Congress should not pass legislation requiring that Keystone XL be built right away.
62 percent said private property should not be taken by eminent domain to build the Keystone pipeline.
55 percent said they are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about the project’s impact on water and wildlife.

It will be interesting to see how opinion changes in the wake of the Mayflower spill debacle.

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Apr 2, 2013

Bob, Oil Companies have always accommodated the transition towards cleaner energy as required by Federal and State regulatory standards.  Dirtier burning petroleum fuels (high sulfur residual fuel oil, high sulfur diesel, leaded gasoline, etc.) have been transformed into the reformulated and cleanest petroleum motor and heating fuels found in the world today based on past and recent Federal and State requirements.  Today, no country in the world has cleaner burning petroleum fuels, including the EU, than is found in the U.S.  Not only is it cleaner, but its half the price of EU petroleum fuels (after taxes).

Petroleum Oil Companies have also reformulated their petroleum motor fuels to accommodate biofuels blending (RBOB, ULSD, etc.) as required by Federal Renewable Fuels Standards.  These transitions have required substantial modifications of supply chains to properly (QA/QC) manage blending generally corrosive biofuels blending components (ethanol & biodiesel).  These biofuels have required special and separate handling outside and in parallel to existing petroleum supply chains.

Agreed, the Public does not want to spend the fruits of their prosperity on higher electric bills.  They have enjoyed relatively low power costs compared to a few years ago (and the EU overall) due to the recent boom in (shale) natural gas production.  Due to a combination of the EPA’s plans to significantly restrict/reduce coal power and further expansion of non-dispatchable wind/solar, everyone’s electric bills are likely to increase in the future.

Bob, the reason why I support the Keystone XL is due to its value to the U.S., not its standalone benefit to any Oil Company I use to work for or with.  Re. my past post.   I do not believe that blocking the Keystone XL will stop the Canadians from developing their oil sand reserves.  Without the Keystone XL, the oil will find its way into world markets eventually, but not as efficiently or cleanly as the U.S. Keystone XL option.  Today about 500,000-600,000 barrels per day of syncrude enter the U.S. via the Keystone phase one pipeline project completed a few years ago.  Another 200,000+ barrels per day is being transported by rail into the U.S. and could increase.  The Keystone XL pipeline will be much more efficient and cleaner then current and possible future options (if the Administration does not approve or delays the project indefinitely).

Mark Tracy's picture
Mark Tracy on Apr 2, 2013

You’re ignoring the projections put out by the government and the oil industry that the US will be independent of foreign oil as soon as the end of the decade. As for Iran shutting down the Straight of Hormuz, that’s just scare talk. Bush and Cheney weren’t even worried about disruptions in the oil supply when they decided to wage war on Iraq. It was the one thing that Bush and Cheney were right about. Very little need to worry about oil supplies when you have 15 US aircraft carrieers patroling the world’s oceans and huge amounts of oil parked underground in the US strategic petroleum reserve.

Mark Tracy's picture
Mark Tracy on Apr 2, 2013

Big oil has always fought the transition towards cleaner energy. Just recently big oil fought the requirement that its refiners reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline.

Mark Tracy's picture
Mark Tracy on Apr 2, 2013

The petroleum industry just hopes the public will forget about “little things” like an oil spill and that the public will not be able to connect the dots.

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Apr 2, 2013

Mark, the DOE/EIA AEO 2013 (reference case) projects the U.S. will be still importing over 30% of our crude & petroleum supply in CY2020.   As for shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, the risk potential is quite real.  Last time I heard, we only kept 2-3 Aircraft Carriers in the Middle East region.  Anyway, it’s not the conventional Iranian forces that put us at risk; it’s the unconventional (small independent) forces that put all marine shipments at greatest risk (and the most difficulty to protect against).  The Iranians don’t have to block all shipments, all they have to do is strike one or two tankers to stop all shipments.  Shipping owners and their insurance companies won’t risk moving further marine tonnage through the Strait after such an incident (and for a to-be-determined period).

Yes, the U.S. has the SPR.  Don’t forget the Strait of Hormuz controls about 40% of all world market water born crude oil supplies.  The U.S. is also part of the International Energy Agency,   which commits OECD countries to aid each other in the event of loss of oil supplies to member countries.  If you live in U.S. PADD’s II, III & IV the SPR will possibly offset a loss of Persian Gulf imports that must pass through the Strait of Hormuz.  Re. my past post on the subject.   However, if you live in U.S. PADD’s I & V (the East and West Coasts), loss of Persian Gulf imports could result in a repeat of the 1973 Arab OPEC oil embargo experience or worse.  The magnitude of the impact depends on how fast the Fed’s issue Jones Act exemptions (i.e. allow use of foreign flagged tankers to move oil between U.S. ports; this of course is further constrained on the availability of unscheduled foreign tankers during a potential world oil crisis).

The relevance of your Bush/Cheney references does not appear to be very significant to our current potential oil supply risk situation.

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Apr 2, 2013

Yes, any company will initially resist regulations that significantly raise their costs and the need to pass those costs onto their customers.  As far as further reducing RFG sulfur, that’s a subject for a future possible post.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 2, 2013

John, I hate to hear about a company like Exxon bearing the guilt of passing along these crippling costs to their customers. With a 2012 profit of $45 billion it must have been a real squeaker last year.

Yet they seem to have no qualms about passing the cost of breathing RFG sulfur on to their customers.


Michael Berndtson's picture
Michael Berndtson on Apr 2, 2013

It’s not really about jobs and security in general. It’s more specifically about commodity production benefiting trading houses, financial concerns, defense contractors upper management and O&G upper management. There’s no other way on earth to make more mega bucks then off natural resource exploitation and financial derivations. And parlaying off of human’s instinct to collect and control natural resources. This would be industrial security derivation of natural resources.

The new O&G (post 1985) business plan is to remove itself as much as possible from any activity past development and production. This would even include petroleum refining and petrochemical manufacturing. The proliferation of independent refiners is an example. O&G tried diversification in the 1970s like when Mobil bought Montgomery Wards and Exxon went into mining. The easiest and most attractive business model is owning the land and mineral rights and selling the raw material to the world market, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other nationalized democracies or dictatorships. I’m sure Exxonmobil would love to hire only certain family members like the House of Saud. Since they really can’t, the next best thing is to breed oilmen when they’re young and keep them in the House of Exxon et al.

My guess is that O&G would rather double down on command and control of natural resource exploitation then venture into something that may take creativity and entrepreneurialism. When I think of out of the box thinking types – corporate executives for security and O&G don’t really come to mind. 

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Apr 2, 2013

Oil companies are responsible to produce fuels per Government regulatory specifications, which they do.  Government Agencies are responsible to determine what those specifications should be based on health and environmental factors, and through established rules making processes, which allow both Public and Industrial comments and inputs.  Overall the process has worked pretty well since the original 1963 Clean Air Act.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 2, 2013

John, yesterday the Supreme Court overturned a challenge by the American Petroleum Institute of a regulation involving limits of NOx emissions near roads. The regulation was enacted because of irrefutable scientific evidence confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed studies:

  • Small levels of NOx can cause nausea, irritated eyes and/or nose, fluid forming in lungs and shortness of breath
  • Breathing in high levels of NOx can lead to: rapid, burning spasms; swelling of throat; reduced oxygen intake; a larger buildup of fluids in lungs and/or death
  • NOx, plus other gound-level ozone, can cause other major respiratory problems in high levels
  • Can react with aerosols from aerosols cans and also cause respiratory problems
  • NOx can cause visual impairment in the area affects by NOx

The only scientific body which disagreed with the EPA’s ruling was the American Lung Association, and that was because the ruling didn’t go far enough – yet API claimed deleterious health effects from NOx were “purely hypothetical”. It’s unclear whether the petroleum industry would have even borne any direct costs for reducing these levels.

The wasting of millions of taxpayer dollars to defend a ruling like this is unconscionable. The system works “pretty well”, does it? No, it doesn’t. The system is increasingly threatened by enormous well-monied interests which attempt to bend reality through sheer intimidation and political muscle. You imply that industry grudgingly submits to EPA rulings, when in fact every one of them is fought tooth and nail, against the will of the people:

“…the national survey finds that likely voters support the Clean Air Act and have sharply different opinions than the Members of Congress who are working to limit EPA’s authority to update and enforce air pollution standards, including on carbon dioxide.”

Like Big Tobacco, which also considers health expendable in the name of profits, the petroleum industry has a severe public trust/relations problem. It’s no wonder why.

Mark Green's picture
Mark Green on Apr 2, 2013

Re: creativity/innovation – the oil and natural gas industry is on it. The need for improvements in efficiencies, safeguards and “out of the box” thinking, when it comes to developing the energy that runs our economy and supports modern living, is constantly driving industry forward. Check out some of the innovations highlighted at IHS CERAWeek recently in Houston. As well, industry invested $71 billion in low- and zero-carbon technologies from 2000 to 2010 – way more than the federal government and nearly as much as the rest of private investment combined.

Michael Berndtson's picture
Michael Berndtson on Apr 2, 2013

Those are truly excellent variations on the theme of oil and gas production and refining you cited in your blog. I wouldn’t call them outside the box – but rather operations and maintenance tweaks for inside the box. Sort of like a food packaging variant of Honey Oats Cheerios derived from regular Cheerios. Innovation is measured in leaps and bounds not incremental changes in activation energy. Which by the way is essential in progress and efficiency gains, i.e petroleum refining and salt water desalination. Innovation tends to destroy existing business plans, which can be scary.

The economy is fueled by people buying and selling stuff and ideas. Assuming the American economy is derived from only by Oil and Gas is kind of selling most of it short. Energy regardless of input raw material moves the economy along. As does land, water and air. And liberal education for fostering innovation. Liberal being old school Midwest liberalism, i.e. a good enough public education system to get at least the public at large able to read, write and add/subtract several numbers in their heads. What they do with this learning after 16 years of age isn’t the State’s problem anymore. 

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Apr 2, 2013

Bob, there will always be differing opinions on any issue, decision or regulation.  Fortunately our system of government allows everyone a fair opportunity to voice their position in contribution to the final decision.  Yes, pushing the decision through the courts is expensive, but is still the right of every individual and organization.  I can sight many examples of decisions that were over turned in the courts such as the EPA’s last year action of fining oil companies for not blending advance ethanol biofuel that did not exist (no one made or could supply the required EPA RFS2 blending target).  The system may not be perfect, but it’s far better than more dictatorial government systems found elsewhere in the world that don’t allow anyone to question any decision under any circumstances.

I look forward to further debates in the future.

Paul Felix Schott's picture
Paul Felix Schott on Apr 5, 2013

 Energy has driven the world for over a thousand years Wind, Hydro and Solar are the oldest forms of energy giving power to all smart enough to use it.

In the last 200 years Coal, Oil and Nuclear has given energy to many worldwide and great power and wealth to only a few. At the cost of many lives in coal Mines, Oil Spills, Radiation, Cancer and Polluting the Air and Water on all of the Earth.

Unfortunately for the wicked there is not an unlimited amount of oil on earth. Just the same as the Forest Trees that clean the air and make Oxygen we breath and all living on earth need to Live.  As some in denial are not able to recognize or ever see or live with blinders on.

Doctors and Drug  ceo’s have been making millions prescribing drugs to many that live near or by High polluted areas that hurt breathing our lungs and harm our children and all. That we all pay for. When all they need is Clean Air and Water, and Clean Cities.

Now common sense would be for all to look for a clean fuel Wind, Hydro, Geothermal and Solar. Renewable Energy is eliminating the need for Dirty Energy Worldwide at a record pace. With Solar Energy Clearly the front runner.

    To the fear of some of the richest people on Earth. They to surprisingly are doing
something extraordinary investing in Solar Energy. After years of many of them trying to under mine it.

    Fuel that makes energy to ship goods, or make electric for homes and manufacturing. Can transform whole nations into prosperity and wealth or poverty and economic hardships for most all. Just as taxes on taxpayers has done. For over two thousand years. Making slaves of many to the wicked and unjust few. History Lesson Roman Empire, Persian Empire now OIL Empire oh sorry OPEC.

    Taxes and Fuel cost are two of the main things to drive up or down economic growth worldwide. When all on earth can see this. Why would anyone with a good mind and heart want, Teachers or Leaders  in any country or Nation to not teach and use Solar and Renewable Energy.

    For any teacher or Leader to think more Taxes on anything is going to help others. They must be on drugs or working for the devil. Thinking only of their future and their pockets. Taking from others weather poor or rich is not going to help the economic realities or the many worldwide struggling just to stay alive. All can see factories and businesses move to the next town, state or even a crossed the ocean. From where they once were to a place the taxes are less.

    All taxpayers would do much better with less taxes on their land as well as their paycheck. Let us all stand United that this is our home land as Heaven will be our home some day. Let us stop the wicked from taxing us out of our own homes and our land. As they cannot take away our Bible tell every Leader we want “In GOD We Trust” on the front of Every Government Building in this Nation.

    Would you drive from Alaska to Florida or go 3,000 miles to buy your oranges or food? When you can go next door to California. Then why on earth would you go over 5,000 miles to get oil? Canada has been our friend for over 100 years. Has the Middle East? How much of your money has our government given and spent in the Middle East? 100s of Billions and the dollar count keeps going up every day. The number of our American sons and daughters blood shed there unspeakable!. Canada is our friend and has stood by
American side many times and is right next door.

    I for one like many Patriotic American’s would love to see America stop using OIL. Yet know the day will come when the high demand and large volume use of oil well end. Till that day i am not in favor of giving my money or Blood Shed of anymore of our men and woman that serve in the Greatest Military on Earth to the Middle East.

    When there is oil next door in Canada, where anyone is free to carry a Bible and read it.
Without someone trying to kill you for doing so. Canada’s Government was the first to use
Solar Energy (PV) on Earth to save money. On its Navigation Lights on its many water ways in the 1970’s. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD CAME ON BOARD to Solar Energy in the 1980’s, after Canada had already saved 10 Million Dollars in less than ten years. The world could have learned a thing or two about Solar Energy From Canada if its Leaders and Teachers did not be so narrow minded with blinders on.

Canada Knows that there is not a endless supply of Forest Trees or Oil.

Why on Earth would you go over 5,000 miles or more when you can go next door is ARE Government Leaders on Drugs. Or are some of them just trying to undermine it.

Do we want to build up or help the wicked or our Christen Friends next door?

United We Stand In GOD We Trust

GOD Bless you for reading this.
May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
guide your Heart.

The Lord’s Little Helper
Paul Felix Schott

ralpph allen's picture
ralpph allen on Apr 6, 2013


Just because this is about the most destructive oil that can be extracted. It is TAR not oil. If spilt it sinks and stays on the bottom of waterways. Look up a recent TAR/oil on the east coast and how they were unable to clean it up. But that is not all folks it is about the most carbon intensive oil to be produced. Now add to that they expect an area about the size of Florida to be destroyed in Canada. This eliminates trees that hold carbon in that area. Don’t believe the BS about how they are going to clean up those thousands of toxic pools that will be there forever destroying the water table. PLUS the amount of water necessary is astounding.


Here is a TED video that gives a great description of this pending disaster.

Basically this is insane. 


Mark Green's picture
Thank Mark for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »