In my view, the question of where the refined product will go has been made moot by the Wyden amendment (an amendment to a highway bill currently under consideration that would give the Congress the authority to permit the pipeline). The Wyden amendment would have required the refined product from the XL pipeline to be sold only in the American market. Harry Reed said the Dems would vote in favor of the pipeline if the Repubs would back the Wyden amendment. The Wyden amendment was voted down yesterday by strong Repub opposition.

I never said that shipping crude via tanker is safer than pipeline. I didn’t get into the spill and safety record of dilbit because of keeping the editorial short. Dilbit is not like conventional crude. It is tar dissolved in a toxic solution of condensed natural gas (containing a goodly content of benzine – - a known carcinogen). It needs to be heated to a temp of 160 degrees F and pumped at pressures of 1400 psi (crude is shipped at ambient temp and at max pressures of 600 psi) to move it through the pipeline. Current U.S. pipeline safety standards do not address that kind of transport mode.

There are three dilbit pipelines that come from the Alberta tar sands to terminals in the upper Midwest of the U.S. They are the Lakehead, Keystone, and one other (the name escapes me for the moment). They have a lousy safety record. Something like 22 times the spill instance of conventional crude pipelines. The Lakehead pipeline spilled 800,000 gal of dilbit into the Kalamazoo (Mich) river in July 2010. Since dilbit is denser than water (unlike conventional crude which floats on the surface), it promptly sank to the bottom (try cleaning that up). A recent Mich Dept of Health report shows approx 60% of residents in the area of the spill now show respiratory and nervous system problems consistent with acute benzine exposure. These poor souls will probably develop cancer in due course.

From what I’ve read, TransCanada will pay top dollar to anyone who will grant them right of way thru their land. Since the route of the XL extension is still up for grabs, and since it is so safe and will mean so many jobs, maybe we all could form a coalition to get it routed thru Ramona.

1. The products currently refined in Texas are primarily sold in the US. While it’s true that our domestic demand for crude has decreased very slightly in the US (kudos to us), we still import just over half of our oil and we remain the largest market for crude in the world. It doesn’t make sense to export this oil.

2. The heavy oil that is currently being refined at these facilities comes primarily from Mexico and Venezuela, which have either dwnidling supplies, an unwillingness to sell to the US, or both. These supplies need to be replaced and Canada would like to be that supplier.

3. If Canada wants to export from Alberta to China, they will do so via their Pacific coast.

And a few other points I’d like to address. First, heavy crude comes from all over the world, not just Canada. I don’t accept the premise that shipping oil via tanker is safer than via pipeline, thousands of miles of which already criscross our country.

As for Cornell’s dependability, they also released a report in 2011 that coal was better for the environment than natural gas. I don’t buy that or the jobs estimate.