Oily Dirt

Debates over the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would extend from Canada’s Athabasca tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast, pit energy efficiency against energy security. By offering conditional approval of the pipeline, Barack Obama can advance its economic and diplomatic benefits, while mitigating its environmental costs.

EDMONTON – Calm discussion of the environment nowadays is about as plausible as reasoned dialogue on witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts. Consider the hyperbolic debate over the Keystone XL pipeline, which would funnel oil from Canada’s Athabasca tar sands in northeastern Alberta to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

The Alberta government – and the oil companies that influence it – would upgrade “tar sands” to “oil sands,” apparently thinking that a better name somehow silences environmental critics. Environmentalists opposing the pipeline refer, with equal deftness, to “dirty oil.” Bystanders understandably wonder which is worse – awkward rebranding or awkward puns.

Neither gaucherie is entirely deceptive. The tar sands are hundreds of square kilometers of bitumen, a viscous and corrosive tarlike deposit. Bitumen permeates the dirt at the surface or, where thin layers of compost and sediment intervene, somewhat below basement levels. Grasping a handful of dirt from a riverbank does leave one’s hand more oily than tarred, and the greasy dirt is somewhat sandy.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which describes the personal data we collect and how we use it.

Log in


Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.