In its lead editorial in the Sunday, April 3 edition, the New York Times spoke out strongly against a proposed 1,700-mile oil pipeline that would connect tar sands fields in Alberta, Canada, with refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Proponents of the pipeline point out the benefits of a stable supply of oil from a friendly neighbor in a time of rising fuel prices and Middle East instability. But the Times editorial argues that the environmental risks, for both Canada and the United States, are “enormous.”

In Alberta, the extraction of oil from the tar sands requires the stripmining of swaths of boreal forest, along with the burning of natural gas and consumption of large quantities of water to produce steam to a turn tar-like substance called bitumen into oil. The Times’ editors came to the same conclusion SLFP did when we filmed in Alberta last year: “Operations in Alberta have already created 65 square miles of toxic holding ponds, which kill migrating birds and pollute downstream watersheds, a serious matter for native communities.”

In the United States, the greatest threat is from pipeline leaks; the Times cites multiple recent spills from existing tar sands pipelines. The new pipeline would cross an important U.S. water reservoir, the Ogallala Aquifer, thus threatening “disastrous consequences” if a leak were to occur.

Two Nebraska senators are opposing the pipeline’s proposed route, but “political pressure to win swift approval has been building in Congress.” Because the pipeline would cross an international boundary, the State Department must approve its construction; that decision is expected later this year.

This controversial issue is one of those featured in Sacred Land Film Project’s upcoming film series Losing Sacred Ground.