Anchor1>> Congress appears to be on the verge of putting a bill approving the Keystone XL
Pipeline on President Obama's desk.
Obama has threatened to veto such a bill.
Anchor2>> Before all of this develops though we are going to take a step back to ask - what
is the pipeline proposal and why is it controversial?
Here to help with that is Josh Goldowitz - he is a Geologist and Hydrologist at RIT.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Goldowitz>> Thanks for having me.
Anchor2>> Let's get started.
For people that don't know what the Keystone XL Pipeline is, the Keystone Pipline already
exists right?
So it is the "XL" part that is the new part.
That is the controversial thing that we are discussing.
Can you explain that?
Goldowitz>> Sure, the Keystone Pipeline, in it's entirety goes from the middle of Alberta
Canada down to Montana.
Then there is a gap from Montana down to Nebraska.
And from Nebraska it already extends down into Texas.
So it is just that section from the Canadian border down to Nebraska.
Anchor1>> Alright so you have supporters who say: look this will increase the oil supply,
keep gas prices down, chances of spills are minimal...
there is already a pipeline pumping gas from that section of Canada...
what is the problem?
And there are concerns that you have, and others.
Goldowitz>> There really are two big problems.
One is that when we build pipelines and operate pipelines there is always the chance for a
spill.
But the biggest problem is that the tar-sands are probably the dirtiest energy source that
we have.
So I think a lot of people are concerned that we are better off not using so much tar-sand,
because it creates so many environmental problems.
Anchor2>> And so for people who are watching: tar-sands... is that mixture, right?
Of bitumen?
It is called?
A mix... almost a clay like mixture.
And how is the oil being extracted from that right now?
Goldowitz>> So for ordinary, or typical oil, you can drill down many thousands of feet
and hit the layer and pump it out of the ground.
But this stuff... bitumen, as you say, is so thick and tarry, it literally will not
flow.
So they are extracting it in two different ways: One way is you clear away all the forests,
and you just dig up the tar sand.
And the tar sand is so thick, it won't flow out of the sand, so they have to heat it.
So that means, in order to get it out, you have to burn a whole bunch of natural gas
in order to heat it.
So before you have even used the tar sand, it has got a big carbon footprint.
Anchor1>>Does it have a bigger carbon footprint than, say, coal?
Which we do use quite a bit?
Josh>> Yes, coal is known as being kind of a dirty fuel, compared to, let's say, natural
gas or using oil... but tar sand is probably the worst.
Anchor2>> What about people that say that this project will create jobs?
Will create thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs, just for the initial phase
and then there will be some jobs remaining that will be good for the economy?
What do you say to that?
Goldowitz>> I think that is true.
There will definitely be jobs created during the construction process, but the company
itself that is going to be operating the XL Pipeline, thinks there will be only 35 full
time jobs once the pipeline is complete.
Anchor2>> After everything is said and done.
Goldowitz>> After the pipeline is actually operating...
only 35 jobs... so that is not really very significant.
Anchor1>> How does the argument...
the issue of climate change work into this?
Goldowitz>> So you guys know that when we burn fossil fuels, we create carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere and that creates global warming.
Well... tar sands create a large amount of carbon dioxide - just when being extracted
from the ground and processed into something we can use.
And then once that fuel is used, it is burnt... creating more carbon dioxide.
So it has significantly more negative impact on the environment than almost any other fossil
fuel we can use.
Anchor2>> But there are a lot of people who say this is an opportunity for us to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil.
And that we have this "gold mine" sitting not too far to the north of us... why aren't
we taking advantage of it?
Why don't we try and find a way to harness that power... that fuel source?
in a safer way?
Goldowitz>> Yes, I think that is a good point.
The US right now is producing more oil everyday, than Saudi Arabia.
So we are working our way toward energy independence.
This would help - of course it is coming from Canada not the US - but eh US oil production
is growing and we are using way less foreign fuel as it is.
But yes, there is definitely some good and bad to this.
We just have to balance if it is worthwhile using this crude oil that is going to be so
environmentally damaging.
Anchor1>> Well, thank you so much for coming in and bringing your expertise.
I learned quite a bit about what would be pulled from the ground, so again, Josh Goldowitz,
from RIT.
We love having him on - not his first time, hopefully not the last.
Goldowitz>> Thank-you so much for having me.