WSJ: A Tale of Two Pipelines

“[Green groups are willing to] ‘sue anyone and everyone to delay the project even further’ to the point it becomes ‘economically unviable.’ Sounds right, if a tad understated.”

The Wall Street Journal editorializes,

Oh, for the bad old days, when Americans could poke fun at Canada for its economic policies. Nowadays, Canada has it all over the U.S.

Take the contrasting political reaction to proposed pipelines to carry oil from Alberta’s oil sands. In the U.S., the Obama Administration has sat on a permit for the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline that would create thousands of jobs, break a supply logjam in Cushing, Oklahoma, and carry the oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. President Obama may soon kill the Keystone XL now that Congress is forcing him to finally make a decision.

Then there’s Canada, where private companies want to invest $5.4 billion to build a Northern Gateway Pipeline that would carry Alberta oil to ports in British Columbia. Joe Oliver, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, recently blasted the “radicals” trying to block the project.

Mr. Oliver said the green movement’s “goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydroelectric dams.” He said the greens “attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.” These groups are willing to “sue anyone and everyone to delay the project even further” to the point it becomes “economically unviable.” Sounds right, if a tad understated.

Canadians are at least as environmentally sensitive as Americans, but they realize the economic folly in failing to exploit abundant their national energy resources. They also realize it’s possible to balance energy production for economic growth with environmental protections.

The Northern Gateway Pipeline is especially important for Canada given Mr. Obama’s hostility to the Keystone XL. If the U.S. shuns Alberta oil, apparently preferring imports from Venezuela, then Canada needs to reach export markets in Asia. “I think it is essential,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said recently, “based on what’s happened with Keystone XL.” Whoever thought the day would come when Ottawa would be more pro-growth than the U.S. government?

5 thoughts on “WSJ: A Tale of Two Pipelines”

  1. Old Forester uses the term “Conservation”. The difference between the National Park Service and the National Forest Service of old is Park Service pushed “Preservation” and Forest Service pushed “Conservation”. Many people use the words interchangeable but “true” conservation cuts trees for profit, not leave the trees for fungus and forest fires.

  2. This is discouraging, but nothing new. I remember the mantra of those opposed to the Alyeska Pipeline in ’69. I was stationed in Alaska at the time: ‘the pipeline will irretrievably harm the tundra, the caribou herds will be decimated, and the griz will not survive’, etc. 4 yrs later and a stack of documents 13 feet tall the pipeline went thru. To this day it has had an exemplary record from all facets. The Keystone is really a no-brainer ‘give it the go ahead’ project. This is not much different than the interminable delays on approvals for federal timber sales, mining projects using the latest and least intrusive technologies, and other common sense natural resource developments.
    The Luddites have ham-strung the makers ever since Nixon pandered to them. I have not heard any specific environmental / natural resource development / endangered species / equal access to justice law questions in any of the Republican presidential debates, except from Perry on energy development. I am so leery of the ‘top two’ candidates with regard to these questions and their ‘core’ beliefs regarding environmentalism. We do need to be good stewards. Conservation implies man using resources.

  3. The next time the FAT Jolly Giant wants to make a film about global warming in Canada, to get out of paying union wages, the Canadian government needs to tax the hell out of him so there is no profit or better yet, deny him a permit.

  4. Counter sue the not for profits and pull their business licenses. Why is there business licenses to stop business?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.