With yet another blow to U.S. energy security, President Barak Obama refused to permit TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline by signing documents, on January 18, to delay the decision until further study can be undertaken, possibly until after the next presidential election.

The decision to derail the pipeline appears to be more politically motivated, driven by concerned environmentalists, than one based on science, economics and engineering. In an era of low jobs growth and high oil prices, it seems surprising that permits were not issued with the caveat that a new route would be needed in the most sensitive areas, a stipulation with which TransCanada can comply.

On the day the decision was announced, a reporter from the American Broadcasting Co.’s Channel 13 news organization visited with Dr. Michael Warren, Hart Energy’s executive director of research and this editor to capture some brief comments from the energy industry. Later that evening, the comments were included in two nightly newscasts, along with comments from various environmentalists.

Representing the energy industry, we expressed our disappointment and explained the major reasons to import from Canada, as opposed to less U.S.-friendly global neighbors; the need for stable and reasonably priced oil for a recovering economy; the need for jobs in an era of nearly 9% unemployment; and the safety features of modern pipelines. Frankly, we were pleasantly surprised at the depth of the reporter’s knowledge on the matter, and her willingness to tell both sides of the story.

Well, it’s a start, but it’s not enough. Much of the rest of the televised news focused on how “dirty” the upgraded oil-sands production is. One might surmise that environmentalists are operating under the

assumption that oil-sands production would enter the U.S. as a sludgy, tar-like, sand-riddled, extremely poisonous flow of black gunk that will turn the heartland of America into a toxic wasteland. But, as the energy industry knows, not so. And in fact, many citizens who do not work in the energy industry also understand and support the pipeline project, and are dismayed.

A simple family discussion about the Obama administration’s decision to capitulate to environmentalists, with this editor’s 80-year old mother who lives in Florida and has never worked in the energy industry, illustrates the common sense of every day individuals.

“Why did Obama do that?” she asked. “Pipelines are certainly safer than trucks and rail cars and ocean takers. And we need the oil!”

Be it Canadian oil-sands production or Venezuelan heavy crude, oil will continue to flow into the U.S. for the foreseeable future. Going forward, energy professionals must continue to work toward informing the public and especially professional environmentalists about the many benefits of North American oil and gas consumption, and the everyday, and sometimes extraordinary, measures to move it safely.

We must do a better job of electing politicians who will put the country’s economy and welfare first, and will not be distracted by hopes for the next election. We must choose leaders who will manage legislation based on facts, as opposed to politics and the big “what if.”

Comments