Letters: Opposed to Keystone pipeline

A sixty-foot section of pipe is lowered into A sixty-foot section of pipe is lowered into a trench during construction of the Gulf Coast Project pipeline in Prague, Oklahoma, U.S., on March 11, 2013. Photo Credit: Bloomberg / Daniel Acker

advertisement | advertise on newsday

The article "Keystone pipe clears big hurdle" [News, Feb. 1] speaks of bringing Canadian crude oil into "refineries in Texas," with no mention that the crude will be piped into a foreign trade zone in Port Arthur, Texas. This zone is not Texas. It is an area designated as foreign soil that has no tax liability to any federal, state or local authority.

The Keystone XL pipeline will carry Canadian "heavy sour" crude through 1,179 miles of pipe stretching across the heart of America. Yet, in a huge tax giveaway to Big Oil, it would magically appear to never have been in the United States. Technically it would be deemed to have been imported into the Port Arthur foreign trade zone, not into the United States.

Once refined, the products would be exported to Asian and South American markets. Since it would be considered to never have been in the United States, exporters would pay fees to foreign nations, but leave nothing here but the pollution from construction and possible spills. Would that be cleaned up using U.S. tax dollars?

I am disappointed that Newsday referred to Keystone XL with no reference to this sizable subsidy to the oil industry.

Bruce Madonna, Mount Sinai
 

advertisement | advertise on newsday

I believe climate change is man-made and real, but I drive an SUV and enjoy the benefits of being on the electrical grid. That being said, when I hear about the Keystone XL pipeline, my reaction is, "Why, and what's in it for me?"

Our domestic energy production is booming. North Dakota is giving us large amounts of oil, natural gas production is growing, and wind and solar are making serious headway.

From my understanding, the oil sands of Alberta are exactly that: sand soaked in oil. TransCanada wants to blast this stuff through pipes in Texas, where it will be refined, loaded on tankers and sent to the highest bidder. Blasting wet sand through a pipe sounds like an accident waiting to happen.

TransCanada claims that it would create 20,000 jobs. Most independent analysis shows a lot fewer jobs, and most of a temporary nature for construction. So to TransCanada I say, sweeten the pot or build it in your own country.

Bruce Schoenberg, Smithtown

Sign up for the Opinion newsletter and get the latest analysis delivered to your inbox.

You also may be interested in: