A recent study concluded that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, in conjunction with reducing the overall U.S. demand for oil, could help reduce Middle East crude oil imports. The pipeline would carry oil from tar sand formations in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas, and would create 20,000 jobs and inject $20 billion into the U.S. economy.
Even though the Canadian pipeline project would not pass through North Dakota, we have many questions about the project. Tops on our list is this question:
The Canadian government expects this country to approve such massive projects when they're concerned about every water project that's proposed in this country, including the Northwest Area Water Supply?
Are we missing something here? We realize the proposed pipeline project would expand and extend an already existing pipeline, but our point is the same. They're asking to send more and more oil from Canada directly through a number of states while at the same time continuing their stubborn opposition to water project like NAWS? We'll ask this: Which project would have a greater negative impact on the environment should a leak occur NAWS or the Keystone XL pipeline? The answer to that question is quite clear.
There's no reason Canada and the U.S. can't work together on such oil pipeline proposals, which if done properly could benefit residents of both countries. But the same is also true for water projects like NAWS, which poses virtually no environmental threat to Canadian interests whatsoever, despite continued opposition from the Manitoba government. Until we see a break in that stalemate, we're not inclined to support the Keystone XL?project.