I try not to pay too much attention to U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts because if I did, my face would be permanently planted in my palm.

Case in point would be a speech he gave here last weekend. Speaking in Manheim, he said President Obama needs to get off the dime and sign off on the Keystone XL pipeline that would provide an avenue for tar sands oil from Canada — the dirtiest fuel on the planet — to be pumped to refineries in the U.S.

Pitts' entreaty fell on deaf ears, as Obama last week rejected plans for the pipeline. But TransCanada, the Alberta-based company that wants to construct it, will be allowed to reapply if it reroutes the pipeline away from the Nebraska Sandhills. So it's dead for now, but could rise from the grave down the line.

As noted by The Associated Press in coverage of Obama's decision, "The GOP has pounded Obama over the issue, saying it's a question of whether he wants to create jobs and import energy from an ally, or lose jobs and see Canadian oil go to Asia instead."

Pitts basically parroted this company line in Manheim. The pipeline, he said, would create tens of thousands of jobs — a figure provided by TransCanada, which reportedly used a "one-year, one-person model." Meaning, if constructing the pipeline takes 6,500 workers two years to build it, that's 6,500 times 2, or 13,000 jobs. TransCanada says another 7,000 jobs would come from supply manufacturers.

The U.S. State Department did its own study and estimated the pipeline would create 5,000 to 6,000 jobs.

As noted, tar sands are an environmental nightmare. The amount of energy it takes to extract and refine it results in carbon dioxide emissions three times higher than conventional oil.

But let's not even talk about the environment, because if the Keystone XL pipeline isn't built, TransCanada may build a pipeline to Canada's western shore, so the oil can be exported to Asia. One way or another, that oil will be extracted.

Pitts and other supporters think we should grab it for ourselves. "I think that energy, and adequate energy, is a matter of national security," Pitts said. "We're too dependent on foreign sources of oil who want to kill us. Why not take oil from a friendly nation?"

Answer: Because there's no guarantee oil would stay here.

Last month, The Associated Press reported that America's top export in 2011 wasn't cars or food or technology, it was fuel — gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. From the article: "Experts say the trend helps explain why U.S. motorists are paying more for gasoline. The more fuel that's sent overseas, the less of a supply cushion there is at home.

"Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. 'It's a world market,' he says.

"Refining companies won't say how much they make by selling fuel overseas. But analysts say those sales are likely generating higher profits per gallon than they would have generated in the U.S. Otherwise, they wouldn't occur."

So if the pipeline were built, Canadian oil would still go to Asia, if Asia's the highest bidder. So tell me again how the pipeline would increase our national security?

Pitts repeated the simplistic fallacies fueling the pipeline debate. If you want to argue that 5,000 to 6,000 jobs, most of them temporary, are a legitimate trade-off for the potential environmental costs (and not just in climactic terms; how would you feel if the pipeline was coming through your community?), do so. If you want to claim that making extraction profitable will drive down prices as oil supplies increase (but remember that even as the tar sands are exploited, production is declining in major oil fields like the U.K.'s North Sea), make that case.

But neither Rep. Pitts nor any other pipeline supporter should try to claim that the project would mean more oil, and safety and security for us. It means no such thing.

Gil Smart is associate editor of the Sunday News. Email him at gsmart@lnpnews.com, or phone 291-8817.