Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US State Department OKs Pipeline From Canada's Oil Sands
WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department has issued a permit for a multibillion-dollar pipeline to carry crude oil from Canadian oil sands to refineries south of the border, triggering a court challenge from environmental and native groups.
The U.S. State Department has issued a permit for a multibillion-dollar pipeline to carry crude oil from Canadian oil sands to refineries south of the border, triggering a court challenge from environmental and native groups. (AFP/Getty image) On Thursday, the State Department issued a Presidential
Permit to Enbridge Energy, Ltd. for the Alberta Clipper - a
1,000-mile/1,607-kilometer crude oil pipeline that will run between
Hardisty, Alberta, and Superior, Wisconsin.
With supply of crude oil from Western Canada oil sands developments expected to grow by as much as 1.8 million barrels per day by 2015, the industry has asked for more capacity out of the oil sands and into the U.S. Midwest markets.
In evaluating the Enbridge application, the State Department said in a statement, officials worked in consultation with "all relevant agencies and parties and with extensive public and stakeholder participation and outreach" and conducted an environmental review of the proposed project.
The department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance the strategic interests of the United States.
"These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer," the department said.
"Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply," the department said.
But an international coalition of environmental and Native American groups said the pipeline would carry "the dirtiest oil on Earth" and vowed to challenge it in court.
"The State Department has rubber-stamped a project that will mean more air, water and global warming pollution, particularly in the communities near refineries that will process this dirty oil," said Earthjustice attorney Sarah Burt. "The project's environmental review fails to show how construction of the Alberta Clipper is in the national interest. We will go to court to make sure that all the impacts of this pipeline are considered."
The environmental and native groups point out that "Tar sands development in Alberta is creating an environmental catastrophe, with toxic tailings ponds so large they can be seen from space and plans to strip away the forests and peat lands in an area the size of Florida."
"In addition," they argue, "greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands production are three times that of conventional crude oil and it contains 11 times more sulfur and nickel, six times more nitrogen and five times more lead than conventional oil. These toxins are released into the U.S. air and water when the crude oil is processed into fuels by refineries."
The coalition says this decision contradicts President Obama's promise to cut global warming and America's addiction to oil while investing in a clean energy future.
"The tar sands pipeline connects U.S. refiners and consumers with the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive crude oil on earth," said Kevin Reuther, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy's legal director.
"Tar sands crude is causing massive environmental degradation in Canada and results in significantly more greenhouse gas emissions. This is the absolute wrong step to take if we want to create a greener energy future."
The State Department found that allowing the pipeline to be built across the U.S.-Canadian border would be in the national interest of the United States. But the coalition argues that instead, this pipeline will hurt the United States.
"Importing dirty tar sands oil is not in our national interest," said Bruce Baizel, Earthworks' senior staff attorney. "At a time when concern is growing about the national security threat posed by global warming, it doesn't make sense to open our gates to one of the dirtiest fuels on Earth. This pipeline will lock America into a dirty energy infrastructure for years to come. This is exactly the kind of project the State Department should be protecting us from."
Many of the groups involved in the coalition also have appealed the U.S. Forest Service over its willingness to allow the pipeline to traverse parts of the Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota.
In addition, a group of tribal members have gathered enough signatures on a petition to hold a referendum on the Leech Lake tribal council's agreement to allow the line through tribal land.
"We are saddened by the news that the Presidential Permit was signed today," said Marty Cobenais of the nonprofit Indigenous Environmental Network, based in Bemidji, Minnesota.
"The voices and rights of the Leech Lake Band members are not being listened to by the Obama Administration. According to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Constitution they are allowed to hold a referendum vote and allow the members to decide to accept the agreement with Enbridge or not. Nearly 700 signatures were obtained.
"If they vote against the agreement, the pipeline route would have to go around the boundaries of the Leech Lake Reservation, which would require a new Environmental Impact Study, plus other permits including a new Presidential Permit," said Cobenais.
The project was approved before all the federal regulations are completed, he said. "The Bureau of Indian Affairs is still waiting to receive a completed application from Enbridge Energy and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe to begin their approval process for allotment lands affected by these pipelines."
But the State Department said approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.
The National Interest Determination took many factors into account, including greenhouse gas emissions, the department said, explaining, "The administration believes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are best addressed through each country’s robust domestic policies and a strong international agreement."
The department repeated that President Barack Obama is "committed to reducing overall emissions and leading the global transition to a low-carbon economy."
The United States will continue to reduce reliance on oil through conservation and energy efficiency measures, such as the recently increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, the department said, "as well as through the pursuit of comprehensive climate legislation and an ambitious global agreement on climate change to include substantial emission reductions for both the United States and Canada."
29 Comments so far
Show AllI'm sure that our good friends in Canada will provide the clean water for the refinery AND swallow the toxic waste it must produce.
if not, there's always paraguay.
What did you expect? That has always been the plan.
Most people don't even know that Canada supplies the U.S. more petroleum and natural gas than any other single country. And the NAFTA sellout effectively hands over control of ALL Canadian petro energy policies to "U.S. Interests", including extraction and priority access.
Canada simply gave up its petro resources without the Middle East "shock and awe" treatment. Living next door to the world's biggest imperial bully sometimes means that discretion isn't just the better part of valor, but a matter of survival.
Water's next.
Ah yes, terrific, let's do exactly the wrong thing!
I live in close proximity of the proposed pipeline from Canada to Elk Point, South Dakota. The State Board just yesterday approved Hyperion to construct a refinery over what is prime farm land to refined 400,000 bbls of oil a day. 4500 roughnecks are expected to be employed in this small town area close to a state university. Put that many men close to a college town is something rather dangerous. If the oil is so precious and the refining so "clean," why doesn't the Canadian outfit (Hyperion) refine the 400,000 bbls a day at the site of the retrieval? Why? Because they don't want that filthy crap to ruin their farms and rural enterprises. Let the USA breathe the residues of that refinery which will occupy some 3000 acres of excellent corn and soy bean farms -- and in so doing, use 12 million barrels of Missouri River a day for the refining methods!. They promise to replace that water with cleaner water than that which they used to refine this junk.
This is another government sellout of the American people. This oil should be refined in Canada. Despite the objections of many local people, this tragic decision passed with flying colors. Money is more important than peoples' farms, clear beautiful air gone forever, and the Americans have bought it hook, line and sinker. The oil interests have suckered our government and its people once more. When will it stop? Maybe we have to stop it ourselves in mass protest all over the country. Your state may be next.
I live in close proximity of the proposed pipeline from Canada to Elk Point, South Dakota. The State Board just yesterday approved Hyperion to construct a refinery over what is prime farm land to refined 400,000 bbls of oil a day. 4500 roughnecks are expected to be employed in this small town area close to a state university. Put that many men close to a college town is something rather dangerous. If the oil is so precious and the refining so "clean," why doesn't the Canadian outfit (Hyperion) refine the 400,000 bbls a day at the site of the retrieval? Why? Because they don't want that filthy crap to ruin their farms and rural enterprises. Let the USA breathe the residues of that refinery which will occupy some 3000 acres of excellent corn and soy bean farms -- and in so doing, use 12 million barrels of Missouri River a day for the refining methods!. They promise to replace that water with cleaner water than that which they used to refine this junk.
This is another government sellout of the American people. This oil should be refined in Canada. Despite the objections of many local people, this tragic decision passed with flying colors. Money is more important than peoples' farms, clear beautiful air gone forever, and the Americans have bought it hook, line and sinker. The oil interests have suckered our government and its people once more. When will it stop? Maybe we have to stop it ourselves in mass protest all over the country. Your state may be next.
First of all Hyperion Resources Inc is a Dallas-based company. It is NOT a "Canadian outfit."
Secondly, even if so-called "U.S. interests" would allow it, which they won't if they have any choice, why on earth should Canadians be expected to "ruin their farms and rural enterprises" in order to satisfy U.S. demands for more refined petroleum products? The primary extraction processes are ruining huge areas of Canadian lands already in order to meet those demands.
As noted below, NAFTA ensures that Canadians are not now and never will be permitted to manage their own resources under any kind of made-in-Canada energy policy. It's governed almost entirely by U.S. requirements, notably including "strategic reserves" that simply transfer Canadian oil to U.S. storage facilities.
Don't blame Canadians for the ungodly mess. They could very easily have been entirely self-sufficient.
it won't stop til we snap out of our denial, develop real teeth to make the corporations accountable, and get off the sauce ourselves.... big ag transporting new zealand apples to washington state for cryin out loud.... private cars and infrastructure to accommodate private cars' commuting needs---the waste and stupidity of such 'amenities' people take for granted... feel entitled to... it's an insane way to live with nonrenewable resources. the party is already over for many of us.... but there's no interest in sobriety whatsoever in some folks... but how does an intervention work on such grand scale with enablers-on-steroids and the mentality of junkies willing to kill for a fix....?
stop feeding the BEAST.
To be fair this is like blaming Columbia for the USA's drug problem. It is the USA that is demanding this oil and most of what is processed at US based plants will be consumed in the USA.
busterkikki, your comment is "interesting", but doesn't reflect reality. I don't know why the oil is NOT refined in Canada, and instead the crude oil is going to be transported - because it would be to THEIR advantage, economically speaking, to refine the stuff. As for the environmental damage, there is already PLENTY of that in the Athabasca River Basin. So, any additional damage due to refining would be small in comparison. You are saying, let the Canadians refine this oil so as to avoid environmental damage in South Dakota. Environmental activists and First Nations people in Canada are fighting to put a STOP to producing this oil in the first place. You say, this is "another government sellout of the American people". Canadians say it was a huge sellout TO the USA under NAFTA (where Canada cannot reduce its exports to the USA so as to meet domestic demand or to sell to a third country - so they are trapped). Although everyone involved stands to make money, the bigger "beneficiary" in this deal is the USA, and NOT Canada.
Shows how far Canada is following the USA down the greedy igmoranous tube.
Sometimes I think all politians are clones of that Lictor ( the cannibal) guy. Hope I did not offend any honest cannibals.
If they ok one war for oil on top of another one, what's wrong with okaying a pipeline? It's not as if they're killing millions with it...yet...
This has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with money. As many have said before, America is not a democracy it is a plutocracy and this is what the people who have too much do to get even more. Clean air, clean water and less global warming be damned!
Oh yes, Alberta.
Here in Canada, we call it the American province.
Can we move to Baja BC?
Oh yes...and the wheeler dealers in the American Province think they are an oil empire. In fact, they are an oil colony dominated by the real wheeler dealers south of the border.
Just as a note. The Government of BC has been boasting that it is receiving more in land auction bids then is Alberta from companies looking for Natural Gas.
The Governmnet of BC charges a lower Royalty on that gas then even Alberta.
The Horn River find is in shale and the same techniques being used in the USA are to be applied there.
The Governments are falling all over themselves to GIVE AWAY the resources in return for "jobs".
It interesting to note that Peter Lougheed (Who I think was a Good premier) started the Heritage trust Fund in Alberta some 30 PLUS years ago. This fund was to grow as revenues put into it each year so that Alberta had a Capital once the oil ran out.
Later Premeiers (all Nincompoops) chose not to add revenues to this fund using their surpluses for massive tax cuts.
Alberta has more oil then Norway.
Norway started the same type of fund up some 15 years later.
Albertas fund after some 30 odd years has some 15 billion dollars in it.
Norways is over 350 billion in HALF the time.
Norway has a nationalized oil company called Statoil. If the foreign multinationals are unwilling to pay the much higher Royalties Norway demands for their resources, Statoil will extract the oil themselves.
Norway used Alberta as an example as what NOT TO DO when utilizing that resource.
Now I lived in Alberta. I was born and raised there. From the age of 14 to 21 I lived in FT Macmurray which is at the center of the Tar sands. I know a lot of people there . They come from all over Canada. One third of the town is from Newfoundland and the Maritimes where unemployment rates push 20 percent.
If you tell these people you support shutting down these plants or slowing their expansion you will not get a whole lot of sympathy. It is their livelihoods and for many their ticket out of poverty.
That has to be understood by groups that want change there.
The optics of a Paul Mcartney as example, worth some 1 billion dollars , being flown in at great expense to land on an ice floe in protest of a Seal hunt, wherein the sealers have incomes of less then 20k a year does not play well.
Good points, GwNorth. It takes two to tango. In this case, it takes a seller who's ready to do the dirty work for money and a buyer who couldn't care less where his oil comes from - as long as it's a guaranteed supply. And if the seller is never going to threaten moving away from the US dollar for his oil sale (as Iran, Venezuela and Russia might be contemplating, and something that Saddam Hussein might have wanted to try, as well?), what more can you ask? This factor alone will guarantee that the tar-sands oil will face no hurdle from the American side. Considering this, it's really funny that Albertans got so worried and worked up that they had to lobby hard, and send high level delegations to "convince" the Americans about the desirability of continuing to buy oil from Alberta. Yes, "jobs" are important, and people's views are heavily influenced by where their paycheck is coming from. But it's also a sad commentary on the overall approach by Canada in running their economy - so heavily dependent on exploiting their natural resources - from beaver pelts and sealskin in the past to forests, mining, fishing, and now, oil and gas. There's nothing wrong in exploiting resources if you have them - but it's the rate at which these are exploited and the price which is obtained that make the difference - in whether the situation is healthy and sustainable. Your comparison with Norway is a good one. Why is the Canadian public not forcing their provincial governments to demand higher royalties for their oil and gas? I guess nationalizing oil and gas would be considered and "extreme" act of socialism?
On a different article, I had commented about the psyche of settler nations (borrowed from Naomi Klein, but she used in a different context altogether :). It would seem like countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and also Brazil, Mexico, etc., to a lesser extent) can't wait to expend all their natural resources in a hurry. Governments in these countries seem to have aligned themselves with corporations and moneyed interests so much more closely than anywhere else. We talk about an oligarchy in control in Russia. How about Canada and the USA? Who decides what gets done and where the money is spent? Why is it so hard to create decent jobs that are sustainable in a G8 country, the second largest in the world, with natural resources that are the envy of the world, but with a population of only around 33 million? Not because the people can't learn new skills or don't care about the environment or sustainability. It's because there's money to be made in exploiting these resources and those who control the levers of power decide which way the economy goes. All the while maintaining the appearance of a democracy. Because they know not everyone goes out to vote, especially if elections are during the hockey season (or Christmas or summer or whatever is considered more important).
A digital witness of the tar sands:
http://tinyurl.com/tarsands-digital-witness
Please all of you who are able, send some financial support to EarthJustice, one of the key nonprofits that is bringing the lawsuit against this abomination. (Or should I say Obama-nation?) In many areas, EarthJustice is our last line of defense against those who would destroy our environment.
There are many new environmental technolgies coming up everyday that relate to the production and processing of oilsands and which are remarkably environmentally friendly. I'm sure once the oilsands production hits the bigtime (a million barrels a day) these will have kicked in to everyone's benefit.
can you be more specific and name some of these remarkably environmentally friendly technologies related to oilsands production please? my bet is the return on investment for oil production is taking quite a nosedive these days...
never underestimate the power of denial.
I wouldn't expect anymore from a dirty country importing dirty petroleum by a bunch of dirty people.
George C. Brown - Dumb-headed mistake foisted on the stupid State Department by the oil barons who never in the world will ever let the U.S. go green so long as they can keep their fortunes growing. It's time to change everything inside the Beltway if this nation is going to survive the plague of the corporatizers, neo-cons, disaster capitalists and the snoozing public
Amen bother Brown, I agree and since the justice department WILL NOT intervene, I say let the people begin to press charges against those criminal oil barons AND the complicit congress and executive parts of our state and federal governments to start judicial proceedings against these criminals.
"The USA will reduce its dependence of foreign oil....", yes, while sucking Canada dry. Do Americans know the meaning of the word "conservation"?
We gave them 'buy American' and they gave us filthy oil. Fair's fair.
There are some popular myths regarding Canada's supply of oil to the U.S. as per NAFTA. I have attached a Parliamentary paper which clarifies things a little. Mexico was more astute in their handling of the oil question. What makes all of this interesting is Mexico's oil production is in decline - the fabled Cantarell field is suffering somewhat. The move is on to increase Canada's oil sands production, right now I believe it is about 1.2 million barrels per day. They would like to get production to about 4.5 mbpd but this will take a lot of time and new technology.
As for refining the product in Canada, I'm sure Canada would love to - refined products are value added therefore a lot more expensive. I can understand the U.S. wishing to refine the crude at home and save some dollars. Canada already ships a fair chunk of refined product to the U.S. as I think the U.S. might send some refined products to Canada - in the East for sure I would think.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0633-e.htm
The bottom line is that NAFTA obliterates the sovereign right of Canada's government to establish its own energy policy or to curtail the exportation of Canadian petroleum resources to the U.S.
Hey, people, I just saw on cable news that the French Farmers are protesting agricultural imports which hurt their own markets. THe farmers are not out carrying signs, no. THey are going to grocery stores and smashing food, tipping over displays etc. In other words, they aren't having any of that import shit.
I like how someone on CD has brought up the idea the French responds to it's citizen's demands because that is what they do... demand. Not whine and say pretty please. The government remembers their war of independence...How it came into existance in the first place...
Also, recently I read a piece here that covered the protest in Britain about two years ago (?) against the coal industry... The plant that was being protested was shut down, because the legal argument that was used was that the property disturction was done to stop harm of large numbers of people, ( I am greatly simplifying here). In other words, The British government saw the light. That burning coal is extremely harmful and that the protesters were right in wanting the plant shut down to stop the pollution which was a main source of illness and destruction in and of itself.
So where are we as Americans? Sitting in front of our computers, talking. I do protest, but it's with a group that wouldn't think about any thing accept carrying signs. They are all older retired people and church groups( pretty progressive in most cases). Anyway, it seems that American progressives will sit around until we are all being fed Soilent Green, live under a climate controled dome, hoping that the starving masses that weren't picked donot break throught the dome structure...
How fast is global climate destruction occuring? Too fast....