Reader ponders pipeline problem

What all the political hype basically means, regarding the presumed benefit, necessity and urgency of constructing the proposed Keystone XL pipeline shortcut (a Keystone pipeline already exists), is that we would be granting foreign corportions, from a foreign, if friendly, neighboring country, the right of eminent domain to cross historic farm and ranch land, disrupting, if not displacing, our own citizens therein, crossing our already endangered aquifers, to expedite the transportation of foreign-owned sand tar crude to foreign-owned refineries, for international export in the tax-free Foreign Trade Zone on our hurricane-prone, Gulf Coast.

Where would the benefits be for citizens of the United States? After initial construction, how many jobs does it take to, hopefully, maintain a pipeline? Since the destination is tax-free, international ports, we wouldn't derive a penny in tax revenue, and the product destined for export would not improve our own energy prices or boost our product supply. It has been sated that it would, conversely, cause Midwestern fuel prices to increase. Another blow to our already financially strapped Midwestern farmers.

We've already had a detrimental spill of Canadian-owned tar sand crude in Michigan into the headwaters of the Great Lakes due to pipeline failure, which, two years later, is still a major problem. Tar sand crude is much thicker and heavier than regular crude, chemically dilluted to flow, and much more difficult to contain or mitigate in a spill situation. Regardless of some politicians' ballyoo, we would have no access to or benefit from the rather foul, foreign-owned, export-bound substance, which would precariously traverse our nation's heartland.

Incidentally, in 2011 we exported more petroleum product than we imported. More domestic petroleum production would not lower fuel prices but would increase exportation dollars for oil companies.

Darlene E. Meyer

Ephrata