Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil, and See no Evil

TransCanada Keystone XL “Alberta's tar sands” are being proposed to cross six states in the U.S. via a pipeline carrying as much as 830,000 barrels a day of a particularly dirty form of oil, expected to reach refineries in Port Arthur, Texas on the Gulf of Mexico. I hear the sound of disaster headed to us faster than a locomotive. Montana is full of pristine water ways and unspoiled lands. The greekgroke web site says sending bitumen down a pipeline is especially problematic and damaging: it’s a more acidic form of petroleum that requires more heat and pressure than conventional oil, which increase pipeline stress to keep it moving. (Chameides) How can this create anything but a hazard to the communities and environments of the states the pipeline is proposed to cross? The Environmental Defense website says Canada’s own environment commissioner says there is a lot the federal government doesn't know about the environmental effects of the oil sands, despite having spent close to $10 billion over the last three decades on climate-change programs. (Staff) Canada’s environmental record has been given a double blow, from a scathing federal audit and a European Commissions assertion to blacklist oil sands products. (Staff) Why would our government even consider putting toxic oil sands across the United States? Canada should use its own refineries and ports that are already established, especially in view of Canada not knowing the full impact the oil sands have on its ecosystems. Pipeline and refinery expansions are taking place with inadequate oversight and information. How much additional pollution will the tar sands bring to the Port Arthur area? Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three-times more greenhouse-gas emissions than producing a barrel of conventional oil. (Price) I