Some perspective on opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and the energy from Canadian oil sands the pipeline would deliver to U.S. refiners. Politicians and activists bad-mouthing the latest environmental review of the pipeline project by the State Department are taking issue with three impact assessments, not just one.

Last week's report reiterated environmental reviews in April 2010 and this past April. The government now has said three times that the 1,700-mile pipeline would pose only minimal environmental risk during construction and operation.

Those who don't like the message went after the messenger. "By concluding that the pipeline will have minimal environmental impact, absent the expert opinion from our government's wildlife experts, it appears that the State Department has not... more »

During my visit to Canada's oil sands region last week, I sensed the concern of energy company officials and others over misinformation that's being spread about oil sands. Ron Liepert, Alberta's energy minister, clearly was puzzled at the idea the United States might reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would deliver millions of barrels of oil to U.S. refiners and eventually support more than 500,000 jobs.

Yet, it's possible. The State Department is weighing approval of the Keystone XL, with a final decision expected by year's end. In the meantime debate over the pipeline and oil sands continues - and with it the stream of misinformation from opponents of abundant, accessible oil from our neighbor and close ally. One post this week is fairly representative. Working our way thro... more »

Why not just wait? That's the administration's response to House legislation that would require a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline by Nov. 1. The administration says its Dec. 31 deadline is soon enough. But, considering the project's vast economic and energy benefits, here's a better question: Why wait any longer than necessary?

Why wait on jobs - 20,000 U.S. jobs during the 1,700-mile pipeline's construction phase alone? Why unnecessarily delay, by even a week, a $13 billion project the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) says will help fully utilize Canada's oil sands - projected to support 600,000 new U.S. jobs by 2035 and more than $775 billion (Canadian dollars) in GDP from 2010 to 2035?

At the same time, why wait on bringing more oil from our No. 1 foreign supplier? Why unn... more »

Let's see now. With a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline drawing closer, a new scare study attacking the pipeline's construction, safety and the oil it will bring from Canada, will appear in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

This week the University of Nebraska's John Stansbury released a personal analysis asserting that TransCanada, the Keystone XL's builder, is trying to win support for the project by underplaying its potential environmental hazards. Unfortunately, the analysis appears to be rife with misinformation, faulty comparisons and errors.

TransCanada cites a number of problems in the report. Key points involve the pipeline's potential susceptibility to corrosion (internally and externally), the nature of the oil sands oil it would deliver from Alberta to U.S. refiners and TransCanada's monito... more »

On Thursday, June 16, API hosted bloggers for a conference call to discuss the economic benefits of oil sands development and the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Janet Annesley, vice president of communications for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), took questions from bloggers along with API experts Cindy Schild, John Kerekes, Marty Durbin and Peter Lidiak.

Topics discussed included the approval process for Keystone XL, pipeline safety standards and U.S. investments in refineries that would support the pipeline. Notably, API's Cindy Schild discussed how the creation of the pipeline could create more U.S. jobs, increase energy security and strengthen the U.S. economy:

"The U.S. should approve this pipeline to utilize this resource to enhance our energy secur... more »