15°c Light rain showers
17°c Cloudy with showers
Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION
What’s wrong with the anti-Keystone argument
From center to right; Bill McKibben, Fiona McRaith, Leah Qusba and Maayan Cohen join a march from the National Mall to the White House in Washington during a rally on calling on President Barack Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, as well as act to limit carbon pollution from power plants and 'move beyond' coal and natural gas, Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013. (MANUEL BALCE CENETA / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Americans who are concerned about pollution and climate change have traditionally stood with science, in particular the consensus that greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are warming the earth and changing the climate.
Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline, in contrast, seem to deliberately ignore the evidence that the pipeline wouldn’t lead to environmental disaster. Missing from their argument — on prominent display in Washington protests this past weekend — are a few salient points. The pipeline would do little to increase greenhouse-gas emissions in North America. It would merely enable Canada to send its crude to Gulf Coast refineries via a north-south pipeline rather than rail or ship, and allow the United States to get more of the eight million barrels of oil it imports each day from a good neighbour.
Now that Nebraska has accepted a revised route for the pipeline around the state’s sensitive Sand Hills region, President Barack Obama is expected to decide this spring whether to allow its construction. He has already encouraged TransCanada Corp. to build the southern part of the line — from Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf Coast, and has only to consider the northern section, which crosses the Saskatchewan-Montana border.
Even if, in making his decision, Obama takes concern for the environment into account, he will have no reason not to approve the project.
Here’s what’s wrong with the environmental argument against the Keystone project. Pipeline foes say that by pumping 700,000 barrels of crude a day to the U.S. it would encourage maximum development of the Athabascan oil sands in Alberta, Canada. Extraction of this thick, dirty crude requires heavy equipment to inject steam underground to unearth the liquefied tar. The process is therefore relatively expensive and high in carbon emissions compared with simple drilling for liquid oil.
Similar steam-injection processes that are used to extract oil from deposits in California’s San Joaquin Valley, however, haven’t received the kind of attention that anti-Keystone forces have aimed at the Alberta oil sands, as an editorial in the journal Nature recently pointed out. If these processes are so intolerable, why would the U.S. oppose Canada’s using them but still allow them to proceed at home?
In any case, extraction methods are getting cleaner. By 2015, carbon-capture technology is expected to reduce emissions from Canadian oil sands by as much as 35 per cent. Even now, when you look at the entire well-to-wheels life cycle of the oil sands crude, its emissions are at most 20 per cent greater than normal, because most of oil’s emissions come from burning the fuel.
Like most every sentient being, the project’s foes are worried about the pipeline’s potential to leak oil within the U.S. TransCanada is taking pains to ensure that the pipeline is designed for the heavy crude it is meant to carry and that it would be safely operated. Even so, we could expect a leak or two a year of more than 2,000 gallons of oil, according to the 2011 environmental impact statement on the project issued by the U.S. State Department. In most cases, however, such spills are expected to be contained in a small area and readily cleanable. This is the calculated risk we take with other oil and gas pipelines, thousands of miles of which crisscross the U.S.
So blocking the Keystone pipeline wouldn’t save the world from environmental catastrophe.
Nor would it save the U.S. economy, as its supporters have argued. The $7 billion project is forecast to bring 20,000 temporary jobs during its construction, but once built it will be operated and maintained by perhaps as few as 20 people.
The reason to approve the pipeline is that it would keep Canadian oil flowing to U.S. refineries in the most efficient way, within the bounds of safety, and this is reason enough.
More The Green Page
- Back to Top
- Return to The Green Page
More The Green Page
(1 of 8 articles for today)
Kinder Morgan takes next step in its Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion plan
6:41 PM 0Kinder Morgan Canada's proposal to increase the capacity of its Trans Mountain pipeline calls for 30 oil tankers a month ...
Poll
Most Popular The Green Page
- Ocean fertilization project leader fired, but First Nation still backs iron dump
- Vancouver Aquarium breeds endangered frogs, plans to release amphibians
- Sunk? No reports of drifting ghost ship Lyubov Orlova in more than two months
- Coast guard will lower subsea bags to seal leaking shipwreck off Newfoundland
- Spray ban may be coming
- Warm weather with cool breaks forecast for Canada this summer
- Logging begins near Vancouver Island's pristine Juan de Fuca Marine Trail
- Calif. bill sought to require product makers to reduce plastic trash polluting the ocean
- Cleanup of the Buchans mine in Newfoundland moving into its final phase
- Wildfire west of Edmonton forces 200 people from homes, another 200 on alert
- Warm weather with cool breaks forecast for Canada this summer
- Boreal Forest conservation negotiations end in failure after three years
- Ocean fertilization project leader fired, but First Nation still backs iron dump
- Vancouver Aquarium breeds endangered frogs, plans to release amphibians
- Wildfire west of Edmonton forces 200 people from homes, another 200 on alert
- Sunk? No reports of drifting ghost ship Lyubov Orlova in more than two months
- Boil water advisory affecting 1.3 million people in Montreal lifted
- More than 91,000 litres of oil spilled from derailed Saskatchewan train
- Spray ban may be coming
- White beefalo has new home to roam at Saskatoon's Forestry Farm exhibit
- Warm weather with cool breaks forecast for Canada this summer
- Emergency management officials waiting for water levels to rise in Regina
- Flooding prompts three Saskatchewan communities to declare states of emergency
- Navy warship fuel spill into Halifax harbour described as "significant"
- Technology will be key to conquering climate change in long run, Harper says
- Harper heads to New York to face grilling on Canada's environmental record
- Boreal Forest conservation negotiations end in failure after three years
- Ocean fertilization project leader fired, but First Nation still backs iron dump
- Purchasing power: Five ways consumers can be more socially conscious in shopping
- Former Liberal prime minister intends to let Americans know the benefits of Keystone
- Warm weather with cool breaks forecast for Canada this summer
- Vancouver Aquarium breeds endangered frogs, plans to release amphibians
- Warm weather with cool breaks forecast for Canada this summer
- 10th Saskatchewan community declares flood emergency; Regina residents told to prepare
- Better oil price needed for emissions controls to work: environment minister
- Harper heads to New York to face grilling on Canada's environmental record
- More money may be needed for heritage area along Manitoba-Ontario boundary
- Sandbags filled, barriers ready as Saskatchewan communities prepare for flooding
- Purchasing power: Five ways consumers can be more socially conscious in shopping
- Ship that sank in 1985 likely source of small oil slicks off Newfoundland
- Liberal Justin Trudeau praises Alberta premier for Keystone efforts, pans Harper
- Vancouver Aquarium breeds endangered frogs, plans to release amphibians
Ads by Google
You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.
Have Your Say
New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.
The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.