Keystone XL Pipeline

The Keystone Project.

Trans Canada, the entity that would construct, own, and operate the proposed pipeline, is a large public company that operates diverse energy-related investments—among them, 57,000 kilometers of pipelines dedicated primarily to transportation and distribution of natural gas, storage for a fraction of this gas, and generation of electric power. It has recently expanded to include construction and operation of oil pipelines. Keystone, a wholly owned subsidiary, already operates an extensive network of oil-distributing pipelines, including one that provides an important link between the Alberta oil sands and the United States.

The existing pipeline extends south from Hardisty, Alberta; proceeds east through Saskatchewan and Manitoba; crosses the border into South Dakota and Nebraska; and transitions east at Steele City, Nebraska, passing through Kansas, Missouri, and Illinois before ending up in Patoka and Wood River in Illinois. It channels the Albertan oil-sands product to refineries in Illinois; capacity is 590,000 barrels per day. An extension completed in February 2012 delivers some of this oil as well from Steele City to Cushing, Oklahoma, a key distribution center for U.S. crude. A further extension, endorsed by President Obama in March 2012 and now under construction, will facilitate transfer of oil from Cushing to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, reducing the bottleneck for midwestern crude currently stranded in storage tanks in Cushing.

CON’S

Richard K. Lattanzio concluded that per unit of fuel consumed, greenhouse-gas emissions associated with Canadian oil sands would be 14 percent to 20 percent higher than a weighted average of transportation fuels now sold or distributed in the United States. He added that “compared to selected imports, Canadian oil-sands crudes range from 9 percent to 19 percent more emission-intensive than Middle Eastern Sour.” Assuming that Keystone XL would deliver to U.S. refineries a maximum supply of 830,000 barrels per day, he concluded that “incremental pipeline emissions would represent an increase in the total annual greenhouse gas emissions for the U.S.”—significant.

Problems, can arise in pipeline transport. An Exxon Mobil pipeline carrying crude from Canada ruptured, dumping thousands of barrels of oil into a residential subdivision in Arkansas. where, Trans Canada promises to institute comprehensive monitoring and install multiple shut-off valves to minimize, if not eliminate, problems with the Keystone XL project.

A concern is whether the pipeline would pose a threat to the massive Ogallala Aquifer — one of the world’s largest underground sources of fresh water. By one calculation, it holds enough water to cover the country’s 48 contiguous states two feet deep. The Ogallala stretches beneath most of Nebraska from the Sand Hills in the west to the outskirts of Omaha. And it runs from South Dakota well past Lubbock, Tex. Former Energy Secretary Steven Chu estimated the direct cost to the United States of extreme weather events in 2012 at $170 billion. These costs are “negative externalities” of the fossil fuel business, as are spills like the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon. These are real costs, and serious ones, excluded from the current price calculations. Judging from the recently released 5th IPCC Report, the cost of future extreme weather will continue to accelerate. Regarding pipeline leaks, the original Keystone pipeline leaked no fewer than fourteen times in its first year of operation. The proposed route for the Keystone XL takes it over the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies fully 30% of the agricultural irrigation for the United States.

Captura de pantalla 2014-04-02 a la(s) 18.43.09

PRO’S

The International Energy Agency defines energy security as, “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price.” And energy security matters because the disruption of supply anywhere can have economic impacts here at home – and around the world.

In Russia, the government has threatened to cut supplies of natural gas off to Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Venezuela has repeatedly threatened to cut off supplies of crude oil to the United States. And while domestic oil production continues to climb, the United States – the largest oil consumer in the world at 15 million barrels each and every day – is still beholden to other countries for its oil. Both the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the International Energy Agency predict America will continue to import between five and eight million barrels per day at least until 2040. America must rely on getting much of its oil from Russia, Nigeria, the Middle East, Venezuela. Increasing supplies of Canadian oil would reduce U.S. dependence on potentially unstable and unreliable sources such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria.

Captura de pantalla 2014-04-02 a la(s) 17.50.19

Oil from Canada has been safely transported to the U.S. for decades. American and Canadian companies have worked together to both develop the resource and then send it to American refineries. This free trade has created and supported thousands and thousands of jobs, spurred economic growth and produced that most important commodity – energy security. This pipeline has the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil produced in Canada and the continental United States to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Keystone will push out much of the higher-priced oil those refineries currently import from overseas.

And, as noted, it matters little for the climate impact where the oil is consumed. Aggressive commitments by Canadian authorities to reduce the greenhouse-gas footprint of tar-sands development, combined with the initiatives already announced by the president to reduce U.S. national emissions, can minimize environmental damage. From the U.S. perspective, there are sound economic and security reasons to encourage development of the Canadian resource.

President Obama’s former National Security Advisor, Retired General James Jones testified before a congressional hearing in March stating,

“The international bullies who wish to use energy scarcity as a weapon against us all are watching intently. If we want to make Mr. Putin’s day and strengthen his hand, we should reject the Keystone. If we want to gain an important measure of national energy security, jobs, tax revenue and prosperity to advance our work on the spectrum of energy solutions that don’t rely on carbon, it should be approved.”

Retired Major General Gary Wattnem highlighted this in an editorial in the Iowa Gazette,

“The risks associated with our oil acquisitions from the Middle East do not exist with Canada. Canada and the United States long have been reliable allies, great trading partners, and both stand to receive a very favorable economic boost from this pipeline.”

Senator John’s 10 reasons why it should be build, via tweet’s:

Captura de pantalla 2014-04-02 a la(s) 18.33.31