Pipeline or storyline?

I am reading and hearing much criticism of the decision not to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. At 4:45 p.m. on Nov. 17, I heard a conservative radio host say that this decision would eliminate refining Canadian tar-sand crude oil in New Orleans. Can exceptionally crude Canadian tar-sand oil be legally refined in our nation?

If it can, why pipe it all the way through our mid-west to the gulf coast? Why not build one or more refineries in the eleven mid-west states between the Mississippi and the Colorado rivers? Besides, aren’t all of our gulf coast refineries already running at full capacity?

Would building Keystone create permanent jobs for untrained blue-collar workers, or temporary jobs for skilled workers until construction was completed? Could Keystone be built so structurally sound that terrorists could not destroy immeasurable amounts of farmland due to deliberate rupture, not to mention mindless vandalism?

Was the true purpose of Keystone to pipe Canadian crude to southern refineries, or Gulf Coast ports from which it could be shipped to third-world countries with lower if any refining standards? How much more difficult would it be to pipe tar-sand crude to the Atlantic or the Pacific through Canada, than to Gulf Coast ports through our nation’s heartland?

Was the purpose of Keystone to increase refinery production of U.S. fuels for the benefit of Americans, or utilize the easiest route to seaports at the risk of severe pollution in our Midwest? Again, if Canadian tar-sand crude could be refined by American standards, why wasn’t the proposal to build shorter pipelines to new refineries far from the Gulf Coast?

Think about it, please.

Robert C. Currie Jr.