Letters: Canada-Texas oil pipeline debated

Newsday has made a poor decision by supporting the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas ["America needs new oil pipeline," Editorial, Jan. 9]. Newsday's opinion reflects, in many ways, the problems that are created, and will continue to be created, by the consistent failure of our country to adopt any sort of a coherent, logical and science-based energy policy. The fact that this proposal is moving forward was a political move, added on by House Republicans as a rider to a bill that needed passing so that President Barack Obama would be forced to make a decision before all necessary environmental reviews are completed. Political gamesmanship should have nothing to do with sound energy policy.

Consider what this tar-sands extraction process would do in Canada. In Alberta, the native ecosystem, a boreal forest or taiga that sustains rare mammals and provides habitat for at least 215 bird species, would be bulldozed, and the tar sands would be strip-mined out. The oil product, called bitumen, would be steamed out by gas-heated water that increases the planet's carbon dioxide concentration, while the process destroys the very forest that absorbs that same gas. Bitumen is too thick to be piped, so it is diluted into something called "dilbit," a mixture that contains chloride salts, acids, sulfur and abrasive minerals; this needs to be pumped at high pressure, making it very tough on pipes. There was a pipeline dilbit spill already in this country, in July of 2010. Roughly 800,000 gallons leaked into Michigan's Kalamazoo River.

In addition, TransCanada Corp. has allegedly been threatening U.S. landowners with eminent domain in an effort to frighten them into selling their right-of-way easements. Our government should protect our citizens from foreign bullying.

Finally, when all of this is decided, the United States will still fail to have an energy policy. We must demand more of our leaders and ourselves.

Jim Jones, Bayville
 

Why is there a problem in getting this pipeline from Canada to Texas under way? We need a reliable source of oil and we cannot afford to be held hostage if there is a problem with one of our oil suppliers.

Let the jobs begin with this pipeline and let the Environmental Protection Agency hire all the people it needs to see that this is done correctly. Like it or not, we need oil to survive until we find substitutes.

We cannot and should not wait any longer. We need security, and we need it yesterday.

Edward Tardibuono, Levittown
 

The Keystone XL pipeline should be denied. It is ill-conceived; the only benefit it brings is short-term jobs in constructing pipes underground, while facing major environmental risks such as potential earthquakes and groundwater contamination.

The existing Gulf Coast refineries are regularly subject to closure and flooding from hurricanes and other storms. The most logical answer is to build this pipeline and run it along the Canadian border to Buffalo, where we should build a new refinery. The bonus would be one additional refinery, one located in the Northeast, where most of the refined product is used.

Arnold Johnson, Levittown
 

The Keystone XL pipeline is another clear example of the oil industry creating a glitzy campaign to sway public opinion. The endorsement by your paper is a serious failure to examine the facts associated with this massive project.

The Alaskan pipeline built in the late '70s carried the same message -- that it would prevent global forces from compromising our energy needs -- and yet, gasoline is approaching $4 per gallon. The only viable means to protect our energy needs is to develop and maintain renewable resources such as solar, wind and hydrogen.

The enormous benefit from these projects would also create employment for the long term, instead of a finite project that is the Keystone pipeline. What provisions have been made to guarantee that American labor is used?

Dominick Figliuolo, Farmingdale