Letters to the Editor

Pipeline is safer option

I was disappointed to read that letter writer Joseph Reichert took exception with my previous letter concerning the Keystone XL pipeline. I dug my old letter out to refresh my memory and crosscheck his point of view against mine.

Reichert offers some good points but his primary focus seems to be on the environmental versus political in regard to the need for petroleum alternatives to save our planet.

If he’s read any of my previous letters on littering, he knows I’m all for caring for the environment.

The focus of my letter was more on the failings of the bureaucratic system in United States, using Keystone XL as a prime example.

In the absence of the additional capabilities of this pipeline, the Canadians will still need to move their oil. Pick your poison: trucks, trains or pipelines. All bring with them a certain level of risk to U.S. residents and the environment.

In the U.S. we transport natural gas, crude oil, gasoline, diesel and jet fuel around the clock, mostly in pipelines. No pipeline failure has ever come close to the death toll and environmental damage experienced with recent rail and highway petroleum-related accidents.

The Keystone XL pipeline project was stopped by just one person’s “vote”. His is the only one that seems to count. The president is a lawyer and should appreciate the liability of purposefully choosing to endanger lives and property in lieu of safer options.

Bill Malec