| CARBON DIOXIDE |
| METHANE |
| NATURAL GAS |
| WATER VAPOR |
| COAL |
| NUCLEAR |
| OFF-SHORE DRILLING |
| ETHANOL |
| ECOSYSTEMS |
| LOCAL - NORTH CAROLINA |
Solutions
| WIND POWER |
| SOLAR POWER |
| WAVE POWER |
| GEOTHERMAL |
| CONSERVATION |
| ELECTRIC VEHICLES |
| WHAT CAN YOU DO? |
International
 |
AUSTRALIA |
 |
BRITAIN |
 |
CANADA |
 |
DENMARK |
 |
SPAIN |
 |
CHINA |
| CONTACT US |
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Lastest pipeline news:
May 10 2013: Major democratic donors urge Obama to reject Keystone pipeline
April
23 2013: EPA raises fresh concern over pipeline. The EPA weighed in rebuking the State Department's review, saying it found environmental objections to the
Department's controversial draft environmental impact statement, issued in
March, which it deemed "insufficient."
"Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the
tyranny of oil." 
These words from President Obama are what generate
the actions of Bill McKibben, who orchestrated the Keystone protests in Washington
DC. Now he writes in Rolling Stone to explain all. Read
| The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 ppm over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon - 240 gigatons - to add 120 ppm |
Below
- Why this pipeline is important / jobs argument
- Problems ahead for Keystone
- What's happening in Canada
- The European connection
- Why Nebraska is a prominent factor - is the pipeline safe?
- Washington DC protests August/September 2011
| Why this pipeline is important |
The proposed Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,711 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, with approximately 327 miles of pipeline in Canada and approximately 1,384 miles in the United States. The project would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada, and the United States near Morgan, Montana and would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil. (Note: one barrel = 42 US gallons.) The pipeline won't just be carrying ordinary oil. Sweet crude, for example, is moved through pipelines at around 150 pounds per square inch, smooth as molasses. The Keystone pipeline will carry tar sands, also known as DilBit, a highly corrosive and benzene-laced mixture of sand, clay water and bitumen at some 1,400 pounds per square inch. The pressure is so great a leak in another Keystone pipeline once shot tar sands six stories high.
Keystone XL oil pipeline plan ‘to be rejected’. President Obama called Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper to explain that the decision was not on the merits of the pipeline but rather on the “arbitrary nature” of a Feb. 21 deadline set by Republican legislators as part of a tax measure he signed - link
November 2012: Keystone pipeline once again challenged in U.S. Following President Obama's re-election, environmental groups are again pressuring him to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. This time, they have a new argument: that the heavy Canadian crude oil the line would carry isn't necessary for energy security because U.S. oil production is booming to record levels even as consumption drops. 350.org and other groups have already scheduled an anti-pipeline protest for November 18 in Washington, D.C. link
November 2011: New study requested by Obama could halt Keystone. The Obama
administration is to reassess the route of the controversial Canada-US oil
pipeline, delaying a decision on the project by up to 18 months. Studying a new
route for Keystone XL is now expected to push the final decision past the 2012
presidential election. The state department's handling of the $7bn
project is already under review for alleged wrongdoing. Correspondents say the
delay will spare President Obama the need to make a politically
sensitive decision - that will be closely watched by environmental groups and
the oil industry - during a presidential election year. link In a statement President
Obama said:"We should take the time to ensure that all questions
are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood."
November 2011: Alternative pipeline if TransCanada forced to cancel. Enbridge Inc., a competitor to TransCanada, said it has received sufficient customer commitments to move forward with two pipeline segments that would connect Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL pipeline requires State Department approval because it crosses the U.S.-Canadian border. Enbridge’s project wouldn’t be subject to State Department review because the section crossing the border already has been built. The new segments connecting to the existing pipe should face less opposition and regulatory review because they would follow routes where Enbridge controls rights-of-way. Enbridge’s plan would bring Canadian crude to Texas by mid- 2013, the same time period Calgary-based TransCanada expects Keystone would be finished. link (Enbridge is responsible for the 840,000 gallon spill in the Kalamazoo River -see below under 'is pipeline safe?')
Bush administration legislated against tar sands oil In 2007, President Bush signed into law Section 526 of the Energy Independence and National Security Act of 2007 which prohibits the US government, the largest single fuel purchaser in the U.S., from using taxpayer dollars to purchase fuels that have a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil. This little-known law is significant because Congress crafted it, in part, with the explicit intent to block the US from buying Canadian tar sands oil, considered the dirtiest oil on the planet. Meanwhile the Canadian government has been working behind the scenes to strike Section 526 from the books to clear the way for tar sands extraction. According to Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and one of the leaders of the Keystone pipeline protests, the burning the recoverable oil in the Alberta tar sands by itself would raise the carbon in the atmosphere by 200 parts per million (ppm). It wasn’t hard to figure out that this would increase the 390 ppm carbon in the atmosphere today by more than half. The leading NASA climate change specialist James Hansen summed up what’s at stake saying: “If the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over” for a viable planet. link |
Argument in favor of Keystone: Within a few years of its completion, Keystone XL would deliver upwards of 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada's oil sands region to U.S. refiners. The Energy Information Administration reports that the additional oil production would secure reliable Canadian imports that would supply 57% of our crude oil needs, up from 51% in 2010. In a larger context, the pipeline would be part of an access strategy that could supply 92% of this country's liquid fuel needs by 2035. According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, U.S. jobs supported by Canadian oil sands could grow to 465,000 in 2035. Nearly 1,000 companies from 47 states already are involved in oil sands development.
| The jobs argument. A
Cornell study finds only 2,500 to 4,650 temporary jobs over two years would
result from building the pipeline, not the 20,000 claimed by the TransCanada
Corp. (A one year extension of a federal solar grant program could create
37,000 jobs.) Another downside is that during 2010, spills and explosions in
America caused one billion dollars worth of damage and 22 oil workers were
killed during that period. link
March 2013: Keystone XL may create fewer, more temporary jobs than previously estimated, maybe as few as 35 permanent jobs - link April 2013: Keystone XL will create just 35 permanent jobs and emit 51 coal plants of carbon. Secretary of State John Kerry has the State Department’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, but if that is all the information he relies on, he won’t get the full picture. While he will see that the project will only bring 35 permanent jobs, he would also see almost no discussion of the pipeline’s impact on the climate. To learn the consequences of approving the Keystone XL pipeline he could peruse a new report from Oil Change International called: “Cooking the Books: How The State Department Analysis Ignores The True Climate Impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline.” The report’s recommendation: The State Department should base critical decisions on whether the project makes sense in a world that is actually seeking to minimize the real dangers of climate change. On this basis, we recommend that decision-makers consider the total amount of carbon that will be released by the project into the atmosphere. link |
| Some problems ahead for Keystone |
March 2013: State Department report on pipeline biased. The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) recently concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline "is unlikely to have a substantial impact" on the rate of Canada's oil sands development . However the report was based on analysis provided by two consulting firms with ties to oil and pipeline companies that could benefit from the proposed project – InsideClimate
January 2013: Sen. Kerry says he will control review of Keystone XL pipeline decision. Sen. John Kerry made it clear that he will play a pivotal role in deciding the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline if he is confirmed as secretary of state. In his opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Kerry also described climate change as one of the “life threatening issues” that defines American foreign policy. Kerry is one of the nation’s most vocal proponents of climate action. He co-authored comprehensive climate legislation that died in 2010 and has long pushed for American leadership in global climate treaty talks. link
February 2013: State Department delays decision until June. link
July 2012: Top scientists urge Secretary of State Clinton to reassess pipeline. A group of prominent American climate scientists sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today urging her to consider the climate impacts of developing the Keystone XL pipeline. link
July 2012: Tar sands oil spill in Michigan blamed on corporate neglect and weak
federal regulations. link
January 2012: Pipeline inspector-turned whistleblower calls Keystone a potential “disaster”. Mike Klink is a former inspector for Bechtel, one of the major contractors working on TransCanada’s original Keystone pipeline, completed in 2010. Klink, who says he’s speaking as an engineer and not an environmentalist, has just published a scathing op-ed in the Lincoln Journal Star criticizing Keystone XL. As an inspector, Klink's job was to monitor the construction of the first Keystone pipeline where he oversaw construction at the pump stations that have been such a problem on that line, already spilling more than a dozen times. "I am coming forward because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was done and covered up," said Klink. Let’s be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one. link
June 2012: Enbridge
not positioned to pay for Gateway oil spill. A new report suggests Enbridge has under-estimated the risk of a bitumen spill
along its technically challenging Northern Gateway Project and ignored the
company's spill history in the United States in its risk studies. The report also concludes that Enbridge doesn't have
adequate insurance coverage or the corporate structure to cover a multi-billion
dollar spill either. Therefore while Enbridge would profit from any flow of
oil, taxpayers would pick up costs of spills. linkJanuary 2012: Oil lobby's financial pressure on Obama over pipeline revealed. Obama has until 21 February 2012 to make a decision on whether to approve the pipeline, under a compromise tax measure approved late last year. In all, the oil and gas industry has given nearly $12m in direct contributions to members of Congress in the last two years. link
October 2011: Pipeline faces question of conflict. The State Department assigned an important environmental impact study of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to a company with financial ties to the pipeline operator, flouting the intent of a federal law meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects. link
More lobbyists found complicit in gaining State Dept approval of tar sands pipeline - link
Oct. 3: E-mails released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the environmental group, Friends of the Earth, paint a picture of a sometimes warm and collaborative relationship between the lobbyist for the pipeline company, Trans-Canada, and officials in the State Department, the agency responsible for evaluating and approving the $7bn project. link
Approval would face continuing legal delays. Legal and regulatory snags lurk at federal and state levels and each could mean more costly delays if the $7 billion project were approved. Environmental groups are girding for a host of battles aimed at putting the brakes on Keystone XL, which is already about a year behind schedule, legal sources said. The first lawsuit over wildlife could be filed this week. link
July 2011: State Department blamed for inadequate assessment. For the second time in a year, the State Department has issued an environmental impact statement about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry diluted bitumen, an acidic crude oil, from the tar sands of northern Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast. The State Department is involved because the pipeline crosses an international border. And for the second time in a year, the Environmental Protection Agency has excoriated the State Department for the inadequacy of its assessment. link
| Environmental Protection Agency officials found the first two drafts to be far from satisfactory and gave the first draft its lowest grade of 'inadequate' almost a year ago. They also report that on a well-to-tank basis the heavy crude extracted is 82% more carbon intensive than conventional oil. |
April 2011: States have authority to accept route of pipeline. A federal memo suggests states have ultimate say on keystone pipeline's route. Advocates say the memo proves that states have the authority to regulate or reroute the controversial oil sands pipeline. link
February 2011: Some landowners mount legal bid to deny right-of-way to pipeline.
TransCanada has gathered easements to use the property of 5,354 landowners along the oil pipeline's route. Some in Oklahoma are among the last holdouts. Oklahoma attorney Harlan Hentges said "The prospect of a foreign company using the U.S. law to take land from U.S. citizens, this is problematic." link
| What's happening in Canada |
February 2013. Tribal members sign treaty calling for an end to Alberta oil sands development
and Keystone XL. People from about 25 U.S. tribes and Canadian First Nations came
to South Dakota for three days last week to craft and sign a mutual-support
treaty. Called the Gathering to Protect the Sacred from the Tar Sands and
Keystone XL, the meeting was triggered in part by the new proposed pipeline
route and related environmental issues. The signing ceremony for the landmark
new International Treaty to Protect the Sacred from Tar Sands Projects served
the dual purpose of commemorating the 150-year anniversary of the January 1863
Pawnee Nation and Ihanktonwan Dakota/Nakota Peace Treaty. The contemporary
treaty-making was “a profound ritual for our time—this is what our ancestors
did,” said one tribal member. link
50% of Canadians oppose Keystone XL pipeline. link
November 2011: Battle
brewing over pipeline plans in B.C. So far British
Columbia has been spared the kind of intense pipeline fight that buffets the
proposed Keystone XL project to carry Alberta crude from the oil sands to
Texas. But not for much longer. Pipeline
politics in this province are heating up. This
week, the pivotal Tsleil-Waututh Nation declared its strong opposition to the
potential expansion of Kinder Morgan’s existing oil pipeline to Burrard Inlet
and the increase in oil-tanker traffic it would bring to their traditional
waters. link
September 2011 - Action in Ottawa. According to the RCMP, approximately 400 people gathered on the lawn of Parliament Monday morning to protest the tar sands developments and two pipelines planned to ship the oil to the U.S. and to the British Columbia coast. Both pipelines are strenuously opposed by several First Nations communities. The RCMP said 117 people were arrested and charged with trespassing under Ontario law. link
| The European connection |
Why Europe is connected to the Keystone project - link
Stephen Harper's Canadian government,
allied with big oil, is lobbying Europe not to regulate tar sands oil. link
January 2013: European Commission sticks to a plan to label fuel from tar sands deposits as highly polluting, deterring refiners bound by environmental rules. link
October 2011: Europe moves closer to banning tar sands oil. link
February 2012: EU debate on tar sands import continues. A European Union is still debating labeling oil derived from oil sands as worse
for climate change than crude oil, a proposal vigorously opposed by officials
in Canada, where such oil is produced. The proposal will now go to the Council
of the EU, representatives of the EU's 27 member countries – a decision was
expected by June 2012. Canada had threatened to take the EU to the World Trade
Organization if it singled out that type of oil as worse for the environment
than others. But the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, contends
that science justifies its proposal. The proposal would be a revision of the
EU's Fuel Quality Directive, which sets a mandatory target for fuel producers
and suppliers to reduce the carbon emitted by fuels by 6%from 2010 levels by
the year 2020. The proposal, while it would not have banned oil from oil sands
from being imported into the EU, would have assigned it a bigger carbon
footprint than average crude oil. Under the European Commission proposal, oil
extracted from oil sands would be deemed to emit 22% more greenhouse gas by
weight than the average for crude oil. It would apply to such oil produced in
Canada and Venezuela. link
October 2011: Britain at odds with Europe. The
European Commission had decided that under the Fuel Quality Directive
(FQD) it would classify oil from tar sands according to its
life-cycle emissions, but the British Government is reported
as trying to persuade other EU countries to adopt a compromise motion
described by green groups as a “wrecking amendment”. According to an official document seen by the
Financial Times, the UK is opposed to “singling out oil sands and oil shale”
and is instead pushing for a different methodology that would account for the
greenhouse gas emissions of all crude oil sources. The Government says that it
is a distortion of the truth to say that the UK is intervening in favour of oil
from tar sands. It says it wants to drive down emissions from all sources, not
just tar sands, and wants to see all heavy crudes dealt with equally. Britain
has come under attack from environmentalists for seeking to delay attempts by
the European Union to penalise oil derived from tar sands. link
| Why Nebraska is a prominent factor - is the pipeline safe? |
Jan.
22 2013: Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman approved new route
for the Keystone XL pipeline, clearing the way for a final decision from U.S.
regulators on the project that would bring Canadian oil to the Texas coast. The
new route avoids Nebraska’s Sand Hills, an environmentally sensitive region
overlaying the Ogallala aquifer, the state’s main source of groundwater. The
pipeline would still cross the aquifer according
to a letter Heineman sent today to President Obama and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton. link
September
2012: Nebraska decision early 2013.The company behind the Keystone XL oil
pipeline has proposed re-routing the U.S. portion to gain support from
environmental groups that have pressured President Obama to block the project.
Canadian firm TransCanada Corp. said it proposed an alternative route to the
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The state hopes to
send a finalized report to Gov. Heineman by the end of this year -he will have 30
days after that to rule on the new route.
| December 2012: Keystone XL fails to use aquifer safeguards as used in Texas. The leak detection technology that will be used on the Keystone XL is standard for the nation's crude oil pipelines and rarely detects leaks smaller than 1% of the pipeline's flow. The Keystone will have a capacity of 29 million gallons per day, so a spill would have to reach 294,000 gallons per day to trigger its leak detection technology. The Keystone XL also won't get two other safeguards found on the 19-mile stretch of the pipeline over Austin's aquifer in Texas: a concrete cap that protects the Longhorn from construction-related punctures, and daily aerial or foot patrols to check for tiny spills that might seep to the surface. link |
April 2012: The campaign continues in Nebraska. New Keystone route avoids sandhills, but still crosses the aquifer. Nebraska landowners say their primary goal to protect the region's water supply was forgotten in the focus only on the Sandhills. Although the new route crosses areas with high water tables, it’s a lot less than the original route. link
September 2011: Opposition in Nebraska.
Environmentalists hoping to block a proposed underground oil
pipeline that would snake 1,700 miles from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico have
pinned their hopes on an unlikely ally — the conservative state of Nebraska. Few
states are as red as Nebraska, which hasn’t supported a Democratic presidential
candidate since 1964. But opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline has risen
steadily since the project was proposed three years ago. The reason: Fears of
contaminating the Ogallala Aquifer, a vast subterranean reservoir that spans a
large swath of the Great Plains and provides water to much of Nebraska as well
as seven other states. Opponents have grown to include Nebraska’s conservative
governor and two U.S. senators, a Republican and a conservative Democrat. link
Nebraska update: November 2011: Nebraskans ready to fight alternative routes. Concern is growing that new legislation won't protect landowners outside the Sandhills, who may be impacted by a rerouted pipeline. link
November 2011: Nebraska’s Governor signs bills to reroute XL pipeline away from the ecologically sensitive Sandhills
region and Ogallala aquifer and to fund an environmental study
for a new pipeline route. link
July 2011: Pipeline carriers under-estimate number of accidents possible. A
new report warns that a rupture in the planned Keystone XL pipeline could
release up to 6.9 million gallons into the Yellowstone river, a nightmare
scenario far outstripping the present spill. The report, produced by an
environmental engineer at the University of Nebraska, sets out four worst-case
scenarios for a spill on the Keystone XL project, which is designed to carry
oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the refineries of Texas.(This follow the
early July 2011 ExxonMobil leak which released 42,000 gallons of crude oil into
the Yellowstone river. ) But environmental groups argue an accident on the Keystone
XL would carry a vastly greater risk. The ExxonMobil pipeline carried about
40,000 barrels a day. The planned Keystone XL would carry more than 700,000
barrels of a thicker and more corrosive type of crude.
The
study argues the pipeline operators TransCanada Corp, have significantly
underestimated the chances of a spill and painted an overly optimistic picture
of how long it would take to shut down the pipeline, noting that TransCanada,
in its estimates, sees the possibility of 11 serious spills on the pipeline
during the course of 50 years where a more realistic estimate would be 91
accidents during that half century. Issue is also taken with TransCanada's
claims that it could shut down a pipeline within 19 minutes of a leak. A slow
leak in a remote area of Montana or Nebraska could go undetected for days or
even weeks between inspections, he warned. It took 56 minutes before ExxonMobil
crews managed to stop the leak into the Yellowstone this month. link (Pictured
is a rupture of the Enbridge pipeline Summer 2010 that spilled roughly
800,000 gallons into the Kalamazoo River, shutting the pipeline down
for 2 months - link.)
June 2012: Leak estimate now put above one million gallons - link
March 2013: Enbridge
warns Kalamazoo cleanup could approach $1 billion. Increasing dredging
requirements resulting from Enbridge’s massive oil spill into Michigan’s
Kalamazoo River in 2010 could push the cleanup bill to almost $1-billion, above
and beyond what is covered by insurance. Earlier this month, the U.S. EPA
ordered Enbridge to perform additional dredging to remove submerged oil and to
maintain sediment traps throughout the river as a result of the rupture. link
| August 2012: Tar sands in Utah. There are about 25 billion barrels of bitumen (oil sands) buried on state and federal land in Utah according to the Utah Geological Survey which would supply all the nation’s current oil needs for a little more than three years. link |
September 2011: Is the pipeline safe? Semantics are being used to assure the pipeline is safe according to the NRDC whose research shows that only 12 of the 57 conditions set by federal regulators differ from the minimum standards already required for pipeline safety. Environmental watchdogs counter that those much-boasted-about claims are based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors. And they have compiled evidence to back up their accusations. "The State Department is saying it doesn’t need to do a study because Keystone XL will be safer than any pipeline built in the United States," NRDCs Anthony Swift said. "That's why we're concerned. In a lot of respects, the State Department is taking TransCanada’s assertions at face value." link
July 2011: Montana leak may have carried tar-sands oil. link
July 2011: Keystone XL
pipeline fight flares in wake of Yellowstone river oil spill. link
| Washington DC protests |
February 2013: Biggest environmental rally in decades attracts nationwide media attention. As many as 40,000 protesters descend on the White House - link
Link to the November 6th White House action which drew 10,000 people.
September 2011: Protests grow around the world. In New Zealand, protestors
shut down the Canadian Embassy for three hours. In Germany, climate organizers
led a bike protest through Berlin that visited major sites connected to the tar
sands, including the Canadian Embassy. In Durban, South Africa a picket against
the Keystone XL pipeline met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she
visited the US Embassy there. Across Africa, climate activists working with
350.org have been visiting Canadian and US embassies to deliver messages
demanding an end to tar sands development. Similar actions also took place in
Rio de Janeiro, Bonn, Mumbai, Sao Paolo, and Lima. link (Pictured - protest in Wellington, New Zealand) As the 2-week protests end, 1,252 have been arrested in total.
Bill McKibben debates the pipeline on PBS Newshour - Aug.29
[Mark
Ruffalo video on the Keystone XL pipeline demonstrations in Washington DC –
August 2011 – view here]
Aug. 24 2011: Nation’s largest environmental organizations stand together
to oppose pipeline - read
August 2011 - New York Times opposes
the Keystone XL pipeline - tcktcktck
| August 2011: An open letter from 20 prominent scientists to President Obama "We are researchers at work on the science of climate change and allied fields. We are writing to add our voices to the indigenous leaders, religious leaders, and environmentalists calling on you to block the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada’s tar sands. The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, but one that does not make sense to exploit. It takes a lot of energy to extract and refine this resource into useable fuel, and the mining is environmentally destructive. Adding this on top of conventional fuels will leave our children and grandchildren a climate system with consequences that are out of their control. It makes no sense to build a pipeline system that would practically guarantee extensive exploitation of this resource. When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the Earth’s climate system and to its oceans. Now that we do know, it’s imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy—and that we leave the tar sands in the ground. We hope those so inclined will join protests scheduled for August and described at tarsandsaction.org. If the pipeline is to be built, you as president have to declare that it is “in the national interest”. As scientists, speaking for ourselves and not for any of our institutions, we can say categorically that it’s not only not in the national interest, it’s also not in the planet’s best interest." |
December 23 2011 - push for 60-day review likely to ensure rejection of pipeline (more)
Activist leaders explain how they beat the Keystone XL pipeline - link
| June 8 2011: An open letter to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer from the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group on the Keystone project in light of the recent ExxonMobil oil spill in the state. link |
Inside Climate News (formerly Solve Climate) recommended source for material on Keystone.
Politico link on Keystone XL pipeline.
Copyright © 2008 thinkglobalgreen.org All Rights Reserved
website hosting powered by Charlotte Internet