The Green Page

Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION

What’s wrong with the anti-Keystone argument

By: Bloomberg News

Posted: 02/20/2013 12:48 PM | Comments: 0

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.

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required

In which story did you find the error? *
Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.
What was the error? *
Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.
What should we have written?
Please indicate your source for the correct information.
Who else should we interview to improve this story?
Please include any contact information you may have.
Can we contact you in the future for advice on stories about this topic?
Yes

No
First Name: *
Last Name: *
E–mail Address: *
This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.
Phone: *
This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.
Colour:
Are you blue? If you can see this, leave it blank and get some CSS support.
Enter the words that you see: * This is to prevent our forms from being filled out automatically.
You have failed to correctly identify the words in the box above. Please try again.

More The Green Page

Undock

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

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.

Back to Top
Return to The Green Page

Dock

More The Green Page

(1 of 5 articles for today)

B.C.'s new mobile device maps can't replace old-school paper maps, says government

6:44 PM 0

VICTORIA - British Columbia's Forests, Lands and Resource Operations Ministry says its new high-resolution, mobile device compatible maps offer pinpoint-accurate ...

Read Article