Energy investment is a matter of cost-benefit analysis. On two major tar sands oil projects, TransCanada's Keystone pipeline system and Hyperion's proposed Union County refinery, we are told that the environmental harm is justified by the benefits of making more oil available on the U.S. market and reducing our reliance on foreign imports (never mind the fact that we haven't yet annexed the source of that tar sands oil, Canada).
That's not an unreasonable argument. Given a choice between losing farmland, roads and ducks or remaining subject to the whims of sheiks, Chavez, and Putin, I might well take the local environmental grief.
But consider this: in the last quarter of 2010, the United States became a net exporter of fuel. Since last November, and except for last January, we've shipped more refined petro-product to other countries than we've shipped in for our own use. As much as you and I are paying at the pump ($3.85 in Madison yesterday for "silver" 10% ethanol blend), U.S. refiners can still make a little more selling to Latin America and elsewhere.
So where will the oil carried by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and the oil refined someday by Hyperion in Union County go? Will it add a single drop to the American market and alleviate our prices or our dependence on non-North-American-Union oil? Or will it simply boost the profits of oil barons and the stocks of foreign countries?
And if the answer is the latter, then why would South Dakotans want to give up rights of way, farmland, and environmental safety for benefits that never reach us?
Bonus Advocacy: Learn more about why Hyperion's costs outweigh the benefits for Union County and neighbors from the southeast South Dakota and northwest Iowa Sierra Club groups.
Oldtimers in the Hills recall the time when Ellsworth sunk wells for the base and wells throughout the region went dry. This refinery is a ruse to tap East River water supplies. Be very afraid.