A "first" in the debates over construction of a "super pipeline" to transport Canadian oil to US Gulf coast refineries has appeared in the Christian Science Monitor:

How much would Keystone pipeline help US consumers? .

It's a first of its kind because the article actually takes what appears to be a reasoned and rational look at a fairly broad range of expert analyses and testimony, instead of repeating the propaganda-based hype spouted by US politicians (mainly by Republicans but also infecting a number of deluded Democrats).

The proposed "Keystone Pipeline" is currently on hold, delayed primarily due to environmental concerns about running a super pipe directly across the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies irrigation water for nearly 30% of the irrigated agricultural production in the US, and all of the potable water for most of the US population between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains.

Members of Congress were "surprised" that there might be concern about pollution in that water resource in the event of a leak. Those of us who rely on that, as the only available water we've got were not at all surprised.

Advocates in Congress have claimed that the pipeline is "absolutely necessary," yet analyses reported in the article indicate that existing pipelines along with existing truck and rail transport capabilities, are fully adequate to support current and projected production of Canadian oil at least for the next 20 years or so.

Claims by advocates that construction of the pipe will add "thousands of jobs" ignore the loss of jobs for those now providing the (fully adequate) transport of all this oil needed or usable by the US(?).

Advocates in Congress have claimed that the pipeline will lower the cost of fuels in the US, but the analyses indicate that the main effect will be to permit diversion of "excess supplies" from the US west coast and midwest, thereby permitting an increase in the price of oil and oil products in the US "Midwest" (about half the population of the US?).

The claim of reducing fuel costs for US consumers is also suspect due to the stated intent of the Canadian producers that most of the oil transported by the pipeline will go to US Gulf Coast refineries to be made ready for increased exports, primarily to China, Japan, and other places. That this is a real factor is demonstrated by the almost instant defeat of a bill introduced in Congress to require that most of the pipeline product be barred from export in order to make it available only, or at least primarily, to US uses.

Claims that this particular pipeline is "essential to national security" for the US appear to be almost totally vacuous, since existing facilities are capable of moving all the oil likely to be needed from sources affected by the pipe, and putting most of the supply in a single pipe makes it an instant target for terrorist attack, if that's what the tinfoil hat crowd is afraid of. Since a significant attack on that pipe could also almost immediately destroy the entire water supply for half the country, it could be considered a "very lucrative target," and defending more than 1,000 miles of pipe at every possible point of attack would be a very difficult task.

The real reason for Canadian support of the pipe apparently is that more convenient transport of Canadian crude to Gulf Coast US refineries, for subsequent export to non-US users would permit Canadian producers to raise the price of the crude oil, increasing some Canadian's income by about $4 billion (US) per year, and of course the US refineries would reap an additional profit for processing more, and "more expensive," oil.

Obviously this pipeline would be of significant benefit to a few Canadian producers, and to the US refiners and exporters. One might suspect that those thus affected in the US are also substantial contributors to politicians, so of course they would benefit(?). It appears, however, that it offers little real benefit to the people in the US and claims of necessity seem vastly overblown.

Since these comments are what I got from this (and a very few other credible reports) I'd suggest reading the original at the link to see if I got at least part of it right.

John