To the Editor:

I can't say that I feel the same about the Keystone XL Pipeline as Robert L. Bradley Jr. does in his article "Build the Pipeline," on Sept. 27, 2013. The article mentions that the "Keystone XL is a clear win-win for consumers and producers," but that doesn't mean it's a win-win for anyone else. Instead of brushing off concerned citizens and referring them to as "radical environmentalists," it would be more beneficial to address some possible environmental issues that were simply ignored altogether in the article.

First of all, it's not as simple as saying that this plan is a great opportunity for increasing our access to crude oil. This isn't just any crude oil. The oil from Alberta, Canada is known as Tar Sands oil. This oil releases as much as 80 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the oil currently being refined in the U.S. It requires an average of three barrels of fresh water in order to extract one barrel of oil. What about the forest destruction in Alberta that comes along with strip mining for this fossil fuel? People may not know that the first pipeline of this kind spilled 12 times in less than a year. What's to say this will never happen with this project? It probably will spill and when it does, it will be nearly impossible to clean up because tar sand oil sinks.

Overall, this project keeps us heading in exactly the direction that we've been trying to avoid. It only reassures our reliance on fossil fuels and prolongs their existence in our society.


Advertisement

Instead of investing so much time, money and energy into the pipeline, we should focus on renewable alternatives that will be both more beneficial and efficient.

Chris Antonez

Manchester Center