Letters | Pipeline gets attention in Maine

We should welcome bid to transport oil from Canada

The overhyped debate regarding the Portland pipeline is a prime example of a solution in search of a problem (“No end to oil fight,” Money & Careers, April 21).

Colin Nickerson writes that the pipeline has “a sterling record” on safety and “has drawn little notice since it was constructed in 1941.” The simple prospect of making minor modifications to transport oil from Canada to the port of Portland should be a welcome development in the pipeline’s long history of providing well-paying jobs and a safe, stable source of energy.

Oil sands crude is no more corrosive or dangerous to transport than other varieties. In fact, this type of oil has been safely transported in the United States for more than 40 years.


Information from the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration shows zero internal corrosion-related releases from pipelines carrying diluted bitumen from 2002 through mid-2012.

Get Arguable in your inbox:
Jeff Jacoby on everything from politics to pet peeves to the passions of the day.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

Comparisons to Keystone XL are as favorable as they are inevitable. In four exhaustive reviews over the course of almost five years, the US State Department has repeatedly concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline would have no significant environmental impact on surrounding areas and would not increase greenhouse gas emissions.

The same principles apply to the Portland pipeline and its demonstrated history of safety over the past 70 years.

Potentially reversing the flow of the Portland pipeline is a win for job creation, economic growth, and energy security.

Discussion surrounding the next step for this dependable asset should be based on facts, not distortions.

Cindy Schild

Senior downstream manager

American Petroleum Institute