Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Canada-US Pipeline on Hold Amid Oil's Recent Woes
Bismarck, N.D. - The steel is staged, and crews are waiting to lay the last and most expensive leg of TransCanada Corp.'s multibillion-dollar pipeline network that would carry Canadian oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast.
In this Sept. 21, 2010 photo, an unidentified protester who is opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline because of environmental reasons, carries signs in Omaha, Neb. TransCanada's second pipeline, the $7 billion Keystone XL, is planned to carry crude oil from tar sands near Hardisty, Alberta to the Gulf Coast is now delayed indefinitely, with little official explanation. The company had hoped to begin laying pipe by the end of the year, but those prospects have dimmed.
(AP Photo/Nati Harnik)
Yet final U.S. government approval for the massive project, once assumed to be on a fast track, is now delayed indefinitely, with little official explanation. The company had hoped to begin laying pipe by the end of the year, but those prospects have dimmed.
Some experts conclude the negative publicity surrounding oil-related disasters, particularly the offshore BP leak that polluted the Gulf Coast for months, has made the Keystone XL pipeline a victim of guilt by association.
"I think it's fair to speculate that BP fouled the nest for TransCanada," said Richard Fineberg, a pipeline analyst with Ester, Alaska-based Research Associates. "There is much more attention to the industry and its dark side. It's going to be harder to get things done at this moment."
If the Calgary-based company is battling poor timing on this leg of the project, it enjoyed much better timing during the previous leg. The Keystone pipeline - separate from Keystone XL albeit part of the same 3,800-mile underground network - sailed through the approval process when Americans were clamoring for the government to do something about record gas prices.
The delay is frustrating for some business and labor leaders who were counting on the new revenues from the pipelines.
"I think all that safety stuff has already been done by now. Let's do something," said Ken Mass, president of the Nebraska AFL-CIO.
The massive pipeline network - about five times the length of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline - is designed to move 1.5 million barrels of Canadian oil daily to U.S. refineries.
TransCanada won approval two years ago for the first Keystone pipeline, which carries crude oil across Saskatchewan and Manitoba and through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Illinois.
Oil began coursing through the 36-inch Keystone pipeline in June, and it appeared that permitting and construction would go as slickly for TransCanada's Keystone XL. That $7 billion leg of the system is designed to carry crude oil from tar sands near Hardisty, Alberta, to the Gulf Coast via Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
Because both pipelines cross the U.S.-Canadian border, presidential permits from the State Department are required. But department officials have given no signal about when they might approve the final permit for Keystone XL, despite enthusiastically touting the Keystone pipeline as a project with little opposition when it was at this stage three years ago.
"I don't know that it was expected to take this long, but it's not a simple process," State Department spokesman Bill Cook said last week. "It's cross-border, across several states, and all these interests have to be reconciled."
In April, the State Department published a draft report giving the Keystone XL pipeline a favorable environmental score, but that was just days before the Gulf Oil spill hit. Other oil-related disasters followed, including Enbridge Inc.'s broken pipeline that spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.
Some elected officials and federal agencies have expressed skepticism about the positive environmental findings. The Environmental Protection Agency called the State Department's review inadequate, while the Department of Energy concluded Keystone XL couldn't act as a safeguard against global price shocks.
Crude for the pipeline comes from oil sands, a tar-like bitumen that is mined or extracted by using steam injected in the ground. Refining the oil creates more greenhouse gases than traditional crude, leading opponents to argue that it doesn't justify the fuel produced.
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., sent a letter last week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioning whether alternative routes were considered that would have been less environmentally risky.
House Energy Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has argued that using crude oil from the Alberta tar sands would increase greenhouse gas emissions.
TransCanada insists the pipeline won't harm the environment but will deliver a dependable source of oil to the U.S. from a friendly trading partner. Still, company officials acknowledge recent oil spills have brought more scrutiny to Keystone XL.
Keystone spokesman Terry Cunha said the only difference between the two pipelines is the routes.
"It's the same kind of pipeline and the same kind of oil," Cunha said.
Not everyone is alarmed by the delay. Kevin Cramer, chairman of the agency that regulates North Dakota's pipeline industry, speculates offshore drilling fears may actually help get Keystone XL and other U.S. pipelines built.
"I think we will be seeing a lot more onshore investment and that onshore crude would be coming to the same ports that the offshore crude would be coming," said Kevin Cramer, chairman of the North Dakota Public Service Commission.
Opponents of the Keystone XL project describe the 1,980-mile pipeline as an ecological disaster waiting to happen, and land owners are angry that TransCanada has threatened to use eminent domain to obtain the easements it needs for the project.
"We really see this pipeline as a problem that's bad for people at every step of the route," said Alex Moore, spokesman for Friends of the Earth.
TransCanada says Keystone XL would inject more than $20 billion in new spending into the U.S. economy and about $585 million in state and local taxes to the six states along the pipeline's path.
Some residents still aren't convinced, including Janie Capp, whose eastern North Dakota farm sits above the Keystone pipeline. She calls the entire system a "risky experiment."
"Anything manmade will eventually leak: a garden hose, a hose on your car or your plumbing," she said. "Everything will leak."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
14 Comments so far
Show AllWhy aren't we spending money on going green ? Oil is dirty, and has it's limits. Eventually it will be all gone. The Sun and the Wind will be here forever, so it only seems logical to start outfitting every home, and building with solar, and wind power. The technology is there, and getting better everyday. China is already surpassing us with outfitting their new buildings, and houses with green tech. America is falling behind every other country on Earth, in green tech., education, healthcare,Justice,freedoms, it's like we are not even trying.
I hang my head in shame and sorrow ,America has lost it's way, and only the very rich have the freedom to enjoy the country we once all could enjoy. It costs over $200 dollars to for just two people to go to a sport event, we used to all be able to go to the ballgame, tickets were cheap, now only the rich can go or you must save up, and plan it like a vacation or something. I remember when I was young we would go to Yankee Stadium and catch a ballgame in the afternoon it was no big deal. We are not Free if we can't afford to see a doctor, or go to a football game. Not one Democrat, or Republican is fighting for our country, they are only fighting for themselves, and the money they make selling us out to corporations. There is no body to vote for, they all suck, and are corrupt, and many should be in jail, instead of enjoying "the life of the rich and famous".
Oil running though the entire lenght of our country that could break and leak ? Where are the GOOD... SMART people ??
The railroad comes through the middle of the house,
In and out of the middle of the house,
Right smack dab through the middle of the house,
Since the company bought the land.
They let us live in the front of the house,
They let us live in the back.
We can't live in the middle of the house
Because that's the railroad track.
Here comes a train through the middle of the house,...
I'm singing this song in the middle of the house.
"Eventually it will be all gone." Probably real soon- well, what most of you can afford. Once my road had 2-3 dozen cars/day, now must be thousands/day. "Pave paradise" as they say, but I fear Mad Max is the future. You probably can't go home again. I remember black skies at night- no more. My Dad said there were nights when he only saw his Mom's coal oil lamp and only heard the wind. The idea of the Sacred is totally lost. Oh, I forgot we have Volunteer football as a substitute. Forgive my sins.
Ashamed UTK grad--MD
Well said razormirror. Not only are we addressing green energy at a snail pace, but big oil is spending billions to stop every effort that would result in using less oil -- like prop 32 in the California November election. Big business is the new Monarchy that our fore-fathers tried to protect us against.
"crews are waiting to lay the last and most expensive leg of TransCanada Corp.'s multibillion-dollar pipeline network that would carry Canadian oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
Did someone work on a map with a ruler to find the refineries that were FURTHEST from the source of the oil? Heck, why didn't they plan a pipeline to Hawaii? Oh, right -- probably no refineries there. Surely $7 billion would cover the cost of new refineries in the border states. So even by the tunnel-vision logic of fossil-fuel dependence, this project makes no sense.
I'm one Canadian who says screw the Tar Sands companies. Alberta oil is the world's dirtiest and Americans should boycott it entirely, don't let a drop flow south through the pipelines.
Aren't these behaviors those exhibited by addicts?
YES, they are. I think it is way past time to stage a take-no-prisoners intervention.
I just came from a "NO TANKS" rally in Stanley Park in beautiful Vancouver. The rally was to raise awareness about sneaky plans to ship Alberta Tar-Oil in tankers through the Georgia Strait and what is now known as The Salish Sea. The rally was well attended and boisterous and was guaranteed front page coverage by the actions of the Harbour Police who confiscated Greenpeace's zodiac inflatable boats before they could be used to ferry reporters to the plucky little citizen's flotilla in English Bay. Kayakers rushed to get their boats and ferry the reporters anyway.
Looking forward to learning why the Harbour Police confiscated private property in the absence of any wrongdoing.
MOST TOXIC ENERGY SOURCE:
The Gulf of Mexico tragedy is only another event that underscores the crucial need to reduce our carbon footprint.
At a time when carbon pollution has been recognized by the international scientific community as a paramount danger to our planet’s future, the current promotion of strip mining the oil sands in Alberta and elsewhere defies logic-- especially as alternativere energy is becoming more viable.
The energy and water required to extract these low grade oils from the formations, and the environmental destruction resulting from the millions of tons of contaminated waste and denuded landscapes which can never be properly restored, render oil sands/shales the worlds most environmental damaging and wasteful source of energy.
Not until the energy cartels, who have blocked every vital reform measures, are dethroned, will we be able develop renewable non toxic energy sources--and halt the self perpetuating climate change and its dangerous related trade deficits before we reacy the tipping point.
And some good news.
The highway travel plans to bring huge equipment to the tar sands operations in Canada from the west coast (manufactured overseas) by road with monster truck caravans has run into legal problems in Idaho and public outcry in Montana. These industrial caravans could bring very significant social and environmental and economic impact to those along the routes proposed.
Corporate fascism must be resisted by any means necessary !
Do Canadians remember the Berger Commission?
Way back in 1974 the big oil majors wanted to build a pipeline from Canada's far North down to Southern Markets.
Justice Berger held an inquiry wherein the impact on the enviroment and and Canada's First Nations peoples was measured and weighed against the "right" and "need" for a pipeline.
To this day there still no pipeline.
Now in one way that is hopeful but in another.....
Consider that in the nearly 40 years SINCE we have become even more reliant on Oil and Natural Gas as a source of energy.
To get this Franken Energy one heats water by burning Natural Gas. One releases huge amounts of Methane when extracting Natural Gas.
Oilybomber signed the first USA import License for the Tar Sands Franken Fuel.
The AP article failed to mention the vast environmental degredation being committed on Alberta.
Germany is producing PhotoVoltaic Thermal Panels (PVTs) that produce 180 watts and 550 BTU's per hour for $900 each delivered in the USA.
How many would $20 Billion buy?
How many jobs would producing $20 Billion worth of PVTs in the USA create?
CD seems to be ignoring the heartwarming French workers and youth rebellion currently being implemented. A similiar rebellion should go Global.
All Power to the People!
I agree with commenters who call for green development, and for exclusion of tar sands oil altogether. But I must add that there could not have been chosen a worse (more environmentally threatening)route for an oil pipeline. Do an advanced search via Google, asking for "map" and "high plains aquifer" or "Ogalalla aquifer" and you will see why. This aquifer is the main source of water for all uses in the very states through which this pipeline is planned to pass. My relatives in Nebraska (not usually environmentalists) are up in arms about this, and advisedly so.