tagged w/ tarsands
-
Enbridge, the Canadian oil giant responsible for a massive tar sands oil spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan not yet two years ago, now wants to pipe tar sands oil—the world’s dirtiest oil—through New England with its Trailbreaker pipeline project.
The Trailbreaker tar sands pipeline project
In August 2011, Enbridge filed a permit application with Canada’s National Energy Board to revive a previous tar sands project, called Trailbreaker. Trailbreaker would transport tar sands oil along an approximately 750-mile route from Ontario and Quebec in Eastern Canada through Vermont, New Hampshire, and terminating in Portland, Maine’s Casco Bay, where the oil would be exported into the international market on super tankers.
The oil industry’s scheme to link the Midwestern pipeline system through eastern Canada and across New England to East Coast ports for export to refineries in the Gulf Coast or overseas was shelved a few years ago and defined as commercially nonviable. The Trailbreaker project would reverse the direction of oil flowing through two major pipelines—Enbridge Line 9 and the Portland/Montreal Pipeline.
Enbridge’s permit application to the Canadian National Energy Board for their Line 9 pipeline reversal is an indication that it’s once again putting the Trailbreaker project back on the table. Although Enbridge has claimed this is a standalone project, the application appears to signal the rebirth of Trailbreaker.
By dividing up the project into two smaller segments, Enbridge could be attempting to shield itself from the type of scrutiny faced by tar sands pipelines like TransCanada’s Keystone XL. Enbridge acknowledged in late 2011 that it was actively pursuing plans to bring tar sands to Ontario, Quebec, and New England.
Tar sands: more toxic than conventional oil
The extraction and processing of tar sands oil is one of the largest industrial operations in the world. Tar sands extraction requires strip mining huge tracts of the pristine Boreal Forest in Alberta, Canada—an area the size of Florida is slated for extraction.
Tar sands oil emits three times more greenhouse gases during production than conventional gasoline and about three barrels of water are polluted and dumped in toxic pools (called tailing ponds) for every barrel of oil produced. These processes use enough energy to make tar sands oil production the fastest-growing contributor to Canada’s carbon pollution and the continent’s biggest carbon bomb.
Tar sands extraction also harms the health and cultural traditions of indigenous communities living downstream from the extraction sites and has been connected to high rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism in the area.
Tar sands pipelines: built to spill
Tar sands pipelines have an abysmal safety record, with a spill rate three times the national average for conventional oil in some parts of the US, putting communities at risk of devastating oil spills and pollution to air and drinking water.
Pipeline safety regulators at the Department of Transportation haven’t yet studied the safety of pipelines that carry tar sands crude or set forth specialized regulations for such pipelines, despite safety concerns unique to corrosive tar-sands oil compared to conventional crude oil. These pipelines must operate at higher temperatures and pressures to move the thick tar sands through a pipe and are subject to severe problems with leak detection and safety issues from the unstable mixture. Tar sands crude is particularly dangerous for older pipelines like the Trailbreaker pipelines, which were constructed during World War II.
Enbridge was responsible for a million gallon tar sands oil spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in June 2010. Two years later, the clean-up costs have surpassed $700 million, residents are still sick from the spill’s toxins, small businesses are still hurting, property values are down, and miles of river remain closed. Now Enbridge wants to pipe tar sands oil through New England with its Trailbreaker project.
Trailbreaker: threatening New England’s natural and cultural landscapes
Trailbreaker would cut through New England's most important waters, including Sebago Lake, home to a native species of landlocked Atlantic salmon and the major drinking water resource for greater Portland, Maine’s largest metropolitan area. It also terminates at Casco Bay, a large, rich estuary near Portland, Maine that is home to a variety of coastal natural resources and a thriving marine economy.
Trailbreaker would also put at risk Grand River Basin, Lake Ontario, the Saint Lawrence River, Victory State Forest, and Androscoggin River. A spill along Trailbreaker’s corridor could harm rivers, lakes, and bays that are vital resources for millions of people in Canada and the United States.
More at the linkEnbridge, the Canadian oil giant responsible for a massive tar sands oil spill into... more
-
-
Through all of the Earth Days I have seen, I have discovered that the environment is about so much more than planting flowers. It is about a love that goes so deep for all that keeps us alive. It is about respecting and working with nature and seeing the interconnections of all species and the biosphere. It is about us remembering every day the effect our actions have on limiting our Earth's ability to sustain us and working in ways that make amends for those actions so our children will be able to have a thriving planet where that connection is primary to them. It is about who we are and why we are here.
The indigenous peoples of our world are the true holders of the secrets of that connection. Through them we see the personification of that respect and the fruits of the Earth they have shared in without avarice. Their wisdom is now crucial as we see our Earth becoming sicker from our pollution, our war and our hate. For many years they have predicted what is now taking place regarding where the greed and arrogance of humanity woud take us and yet their voices are silenced and their land, water, and cultures sacrificed for a false choice.
So in commemoration of Earth Day, I would hope people would become aware and take action against the global assault by corporations (Monsanto, DOW Chemical, Shell, BP, Rio Tinto as examples) and governments on the Indigenous peoples of our globe, even and particularly in our own country and the Amazon regarding water, agriculture, land and the oil that once sucked out of Earth tilts its balance and ours. Their wisdom of this Earth and how to work in harmony with nature is what we should now be seeking out as it is wisdom that can save our species from self destruction. I remember and salute them on Earth Day and pledge to stand with them in this fight for Earth democracy and climate justice.Through all of the Earth Days I have seen, I have discovered that the environment is... more
-
-
The Harper’s government’s budget commits $8 million over the next two years to help the Canadian Revenue Agency target registered charities that the government believes are too overtly political. The money will be used to “improve transparency by requiring charities to provide more information on their political activities, including the extent to which these are funded by foreign sources”. This is a direct target toward organizations that support environmental organizations.
While at the same time they are trying to shut up environmentalist, they are proposing to streamline the review progress for economic projects. Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty said: "We will streamline the review process for such projects, according to the following principle: one project, one review, completed in a clearly defined time period. We will ensure that Canada has the infrastructure we need to move our exports to new markets."
This is Harper’s way to suppress protests of the pipeline and new oilsand projects as the push for more of these highly pollutant projects.
If you click on the article you will see what the oilsands refinery really looks like, and clearly shows the pollution threatening Fort McMurray in the background.
http://www.canada.com/business/Flaherty+smiles+toward+natural+resources/6381029/story.htmlThe Harper’s government’s budget commits $8 million over the next two... more
-
-
"Presidential" candidates of the two party system we have in place are perpetuating a climate catastrophe by not addressing it in their campaigns. As Americans we need to be demanding more openness, truth and transparency regarding this crisis that scientists have been warning us about for over thirty years, the effects of which we are now seeing globally particularly in the Arctic. Our voices must hold them accountable regardless of the letter after their names. We all have to share this planet. This is not about Democrats and Republicans, this is about humanity."Presidential" candidates of the two party system we have in place are... more
-
-
A prominent American naturalist used an appearance on NBC’s popular Today show to salvage the image of the misunderstood grey wolf, and savage Canada’s reputation over its plan to poison and shoot the predator in Alberta’s oil sands region.
As host Natalie Morales joked about Little Red Riding Hood, David Mizejewski showed off two wolves and made a plea for their protection. He highlighted a Canadian plan to kill wolves as part of an effort to protect the boreal caribou herd, which is threatened by loss of habitat in the oil sands region and elsewhere.
The National Wildlife Federation conservationist said the wolf cull was one more reason that Americans should oppose their country’s growing consumption from the oil sands.
“These beautiful animals – their wild kin – are going to be poisoned with strychnine, they’re going to be shot out of helicopters, all to feed our addiction to dirty oil,” he said.
The federal and Alberta governments say the wolf program is just one possible tool to be used in a national effort to protect the boreal caribou that, they say, is threatened not only by industrial encroachment on their habitat but by increased predation.
Environment Minister Peter Kent has acknowledged that wolves may have to be killed in northeastern Alberta and said that is “regrettable” but an accepted scientific approach. A spokesman said Friday it will be up to the province to implement and manage the plan once it has been finalized this spring.
David Ealey, a spokesman for Alberta’s Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development, said the government is working with industry across the province to protect caribou habitat and protect the herds. For the past several years, there has been a wolf cull in one region of western Alberta that has succeeded in stabilizing the caribou population, he said, but it is not certain it will be replicated in the oil sands region.
Wolves have seen their Alberta numbers rise, in part because warmer winters are driving growing white-tailed deer numbers. But scientists say culling wolves is simply ineffective. Alberta’s wolf population has rebounded from 1,500 in the late 1960s to an estimated 7,000 today.
More at the linkA prominent American naturalist used an appearance on NBC’s popular Today show... more
-
-
This is an incredible presentation by photogtapher Garth Lenz showing shocking photographs of the devastation of tarsands along with the beautiful ecosystems threatened by them. Even he could not hold back his emotion when relaying the effects on indigenous communities and the responsibilty we all have in stopping this atrocity of nature before it is too late.This is an incredible presentation by photogtapher Garth Lenz showing shocking... more
-
-
Five Facts And One Big Lie: A Closer Look At The Oil Lobby's Keystone XL Jobs Claims
With the 2012 presidential election rapidly approaching, the oil lobby is pushing harder than ever to frame the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) as a "job creator." However, TransCanada (the Canadian company behind the pipeline), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have used massively inflated statistics. In fact, KXL would create few permanent jobs.
BIG LIE: KXL Will Create 20,000-465,000 Jobs
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce: KXL Will Create "Up To 250,000" Jobs. In a January 12, 2012, speech, Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S Chamber of Commerce, said: "Labor unions and the business community alike are urging President Obama to act in the best interests of our national security and our workers and approve the pipeline. We can put 20,000 Americans to work right away and up to 250,000 over the life of the project." [Donohue Remarks, 1/12/11, via USChamber.com]
American Petroleum Institute: KXL Will Enable "More Than A Half A Million New U.S. Jobs By 2035." In a January 4, 2012, speech API President Jack Gerard said: "We've seen it in the continued delay of the Keystone XL pipeline - the largest shovel-ready project promising 20,000 construction-related jobs over the next two years, enabling more than half a million new U.S. jobs by 2035." [Gerard Remarks, 1/4/12, via API.org]
TransCanada: KXL Will Create 20,000 Jobs In Construction And Manufacturing And 465,000 Jobs Throughout the U.S Economy. In a January 10, 2012, press release, TransCanada claimed: "The $7 billion oil pipeline is the largest infrastructure project on the books in the U.S. right now. It would create 20,000 jobs: 13,000 in construction, 7,000 in manufacturing. [...] As Keystone XL supports oil sands development, the impact on jobs in America becomes even more pronounced. The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) predicts a $521 billion increase in the U.S. gross domestic product and the creation of 465,000 U.S. jobs." [TransCanada, 1/10/12]
FACT 1: Experts Say Those Numbers Are "Meaningless" And "Dead Wrong"
Energy Expert: The Analysis Supporting TransCanada's Claims Is "Dead Wrong." On October 27, 2011, the Council on Foreign Relations' Michael Levi wrote: "The 'economic impact study' [on which the claim of 250,000 permanent jobs is based] in question appears to be a widely cited report by The Perryman Group. ... The Perryman report has been criticized for the claim of 20,000 jobs along the pipeline route. I've seen less criticism of the far more impressive 250,000 number. ... That's a shame, since while the number is being invoked prominently, the analysis upon which it's based is dead wrong. [Council on Foreign Relations, 10/27/11]
Environmental Economist: "These Gross Employment Figures Are Meaningless." On September 9, 2011, environmental economist Andrew Leach wrote: "Sorry, TransCanada — the number which matters and on which decisions should be made is not how many people will be employed building the pipeline and supplying all of the services associated with building it, or the employment tied to the use of the oil transported. These gross employment figures are meaningless. As with GHG's, only net impacts relative to the most likely alternative matter." [Andrew Leach's blog, 9/9/11, emphasis added]
Cornell University Global Labor Institute: TransCanada's Estimate Is "So Opaque As To Make Meaningful Review Impossible." A September 2011 analysis by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute states:
Perryman states that he received this data from TransCanada, but nowhere in the report does he provide the TransCanada input data (for construction expenditures and sourcing of inputs). Perryman does not even present summary detail as to the essentials regarding inputs (such as a breakdown of expenditures into major categories and assumptions regarding whether major inputs such as steel pipe are imported or sourced domestically or imported). Nor does the Perryman report provide adequate detail as to the nature of the job impacts estimated (such as a breakdown between direct, indirect, and induced). In fact, the lack of adequate data and detail render the report so opaque as to make meaningful review impossible. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011, emphasis added]
FACT 2: Independent Assessment Found That KXL Jobs Would Create As Few As 50 Permanent Jobs
Cornell University Global Labor Institute: Based On TransCanada's Numbers, "The Project Will Create No More Than 2,500-4,600 Temporary Direct Construction Jobs." From Cornell University Global Labor Institute's report: "A calculation of the direct jobs that might be created by KXL can begin with an examination of the jobs on-site to build and inspect the pipeline. The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]
Cornell: "Almost All" KXL Jobs Will Be Temporary - Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." From Cornell University Global Labor Institute's report: "[I]t is also important to consider that almost all of the jobs (direct, indirect and induced) associated with Keystone XL will, of course, also be temporary. The operating costs for KXL are very minimal, and based on the figures provided by TransCanada for the Canadian section of the pipeline, the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50. The other operating expenditures (for materials, supplies, services, electric power, property taxes, etc.) would comprise the bulk of operating expenses and would also have some job impacts. So considering a broad range of spin-offs, operating expenditures would have job impacts in the order of around 1,000 per year." [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011, internal citations removed]
ThinkProgress Graphic Compares TransCanada's Stats With Independent Figures: The following chart from ThinkProgress compares the high-end estimate of Cornell Global Labor Institute's report and the TransCanada-commissioned Perryman Group's estimate:
FACT 3: TransCanada's Estimates Include Jobs In Other Countries
CNN: TransCanada's Estimates "Include Jobs In Canada." From a December 14 CNNMoney article:
TransCanada numbers count each job on a yearly basis. If the pipeline employs 10,000 people working for two years, that's 20,000 jobs by the company's count.
The estimates also include jobs in Canada, where about a third of the $7 billion pipeline would be constructed. [CNNMoney,12/14/11]
FACT 4: Even TransCanada Acknowledges That Each Construction Job Will Only Last "One Year."
TransCanada's CEO Acknowledges That Each Job Will Only Last "One Year." According to the Washington Post: "[TransCanada chief executive Russ] Girling that the 13,000 figure was "one person, one year," meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500." [Washington Post, 11/5/11]
TransCanada VP: Permanent Jobs "In The Hundreds." On the November 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, TransCanada Vice President Robert Jones stated: "We will have an integrated operation with the existing pipeline, so, you know, the numbers are literally technicians and such up and down the line. So you're probably looking in the field from Montana to Houston in the hundreds, certainly not in the thousands, because those are construction jobs." [CNN, The Situation Room, 11/11/11]
As for the 7,000 indirect supply chain jobs, the $1.9 billion already spent by TransCanada would reduce the number of jobs that would be created in the future.
.Five Facts And One Big Lie: A Closer Look At The Oil Lobby's Keystone XL Jobs... more
-
-
The prime minister is talking about being "held hostage" by U.S. interests. Radio ads blare, "Stand up to this foreign bully." A Twitter account tells of a "secret plan to target Canada: exposed!"
Could this be Canada? The cheerful northern neighbor: supplier of troops to unpleasant U.S.-led foreign conflicts, reliable trade partner, ally in holding terrorism back from North America's shores, not to mention the No. 1 supplier of America's oil?
Canada's recent push for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the nation's West Coast, where it would be sent to China, has been marked by uncharacteristic defiance. And it first flared in the brouhaha over the bananas.
Responding to urgings from U.S. environmentalists, Ohio-based Chiquita Brands International Inc. announced in November that it would join a growing number of companies trying to avoid fuel derived from Canada's tar sands, whose production is blamed for accelerating climate change and leveling boreal forests.
Then in January, President Obama abruptly vetoed a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, Canada's $7-billion project to deliver oil across the U.S. Midwest to the Texas Gulf Coast , which environmentalists have long opposed.
Mix in a touch of nationalism, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's view that Canada needs to hedge its oil bets by diversifying its export markets, and the fight was on — not only with the neighbor to the south, but also among Canadians.
"Canada is not what it used to be," said Todd Paglia, executive director ForestEthics, an environmental group that has been calling for the international boycotts on tar sands oil. "It's hard to believe, but it's tilting toward becoming more of an authoritarian petro state, positioning itself as a resource colony for China."
On the other side, a lobbying group pushing Canada as an alternative to unstable and sometimes unsavory oil producers in the Middle East ramped up a boycott of its own, this one targeting Chiquita bananas.
"Stand up to this foreign bully. Don't buy Chiquita bananas," said a radio spot by the group, which calls itself EthicalOil.org, complaining about what it called Chiquita's record of supporting terrorist groups in South America. A Twitter profile was set up for @bloodbananas to expose the allegedly hypocritical campaign against Canada.
Over the last few weeks, a two-agency review panel has convened the first in a long round of hearings on Northern Gateway, pointedly described as a pipeline that won't deliver much oil to the U.S. Instead, it will allow Canada to end its sole dependence on American buyers for its most important export by opening up markets in Asia, and allow it to attract the badly needed foreign investment to develop the sands.
"I think what's happened around the Keystone is a wake-up call, the degree to which we are dependent or possibly held hostage to decisions in the United States, and especially decisions that may be made for very bad political reasons," Harper, whose government has labeled pipeline opponents as foreign-funded "radicals," told CBC television in January.
The $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project, which would carry 525,000 barrels a day of crude 731 miles from a town near Edmonton through the Rocky Mountains to a new port on the British Columbia coast, has long been in the works as a companion to Keystone XL.
But with Keystone's recent turmoil in the U.S., Northern Gateway has risen to new prominence as a defiant Plan B for a nation increasingly aggressive in combating international hurdles, whether it's greenhouse gas treaties, low-carbon fuel standards or U.S. presidential politics.
"There has always been very strong support by the Harper government, by the province of Alberta and by the oil industry for the Northern Gateway pipeline. But there's no question that for all three of those entities, that urgency increased dramatically with the apparent defeat of Keystone XL," said George Hoberg, a political scientist and professor of forestry at the University of British Columbia.
"The Harper government's view is that, especially in the Obama years, the U.S. is becoming a less reliable partner for the oil sands."
More at the linkThe prime minister is talking about being "held hostage" by U.S. interests.... more
-
-
Canada’s caribou population are in steep decline. That’s due in part to the destruction of habitat through logging, expanding tar sands production, and other industrial development in the province of Alberta.
But rather than focus on habitat conservation efforts to protect threatened caribou populations in the province, Canadian officials are poisoning and shooting wolves that prey on caribou.
The practice is not new in Alberta. But the stunning decline in Caribou herds is forcing the Canadian government to ramp up culling efforts around Alberta’s oil sands — potentially resulting in the death of 6,000 wolves over the next five years, according to the Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental think tank.
Government officials didn’t confirm those figures, but one Canada’s environment minister admitted it would be “very large numbers.”
Environmental organizations are hammering the Canadian government over the killing of wolves, saying that it is proof of the cascading environmental impacts of tar sands production. The National Wildlife Federation released a short report today on the issue:
Two particularly repugnant methods of destroying wolves – shooting wolves from helicopters and poisoning wolves with baits laced with strychnine – would be carried out in response to the caribou declines. Strychnine is a deadly poison known for an excruciating death that progresses painfully from muscle spasms to convulsions to suffocation, over a period of hours. Wildlife officials will place strychnine baits on the ground or spread them from aircraft in areas they know wolves inhabit. In addition to wolves, non-target animals like raptors, wolverines and cougars will be at risk from eating the poisoned baits or scavenging on the deadly carcasses of poisoned wildlife.
These methods have already been used in Alberta to kill hundreds of wolves. Now the Canadian government wants to use them to kill thousands more.
According to a report from the Alberta Caribou Committee, it is very possible that increased industrial activity in Alberta — much of it driven by expanding tar sands mining — will cause the complete collapse of caribou populations living in the Boreal forest:
Boreal caribou will not persist for more than two to four decades without immediate and aggressive management intervention. Tough choices need to be made between the management imperative to recover boreal caribou and plans for ongoing bitumen development and industrial land-use.
The Canadian government agrees that caribou populations around Alberta and British Columbia are “very unlikely” to survive due to decades of sustained industrial development in fragile habitat. The dramatic expansion of tar sands is becoming a key driver of this habitat loss.
But rather than slow this type of environmentally-destructive activity to prevent Caribou (and now wolves) from being eviscerated, the Canadian government only plans to continue aggressive expansion of tar sands.
More at the linkCanada’s caribou population are in steep decline. That’s due in part to... more
-
-
This is why activism matters.
Six months ago, the Obama Administration was set to approve one of the single most environmentally disastrous fossil fuel projects imaginable.
Today, it's dead.
The Keystone XL pipeline - designed to bring filthy tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas so that oil companies can profit by selling the oil overseas - was dealt a severe setback Wednesday when President Obama said no to an election year blackmail threat by the American Petroleum Institute and its lackeys in Congress.
But President Obama didn't reject Keystone XL because he wanted to. Or because he thought it was the right thing to do. Or because he thought it would help his reelection campaign. He rejected it because you made him do it.
It's a victory for activists. But because the President rejected the pipeline on a narrow technicality,1 in no way has he set down a clear marker against the pipeline or the carbon bomb that burning Canadian tar sands oil in China represents.
We want to thank the many groups and thousands of activists, who, following the inspiring call of Bill McKibben, joined us in putting massive public pressure on the President. In fact, CREDO waged the single largest activism campaign in our history.2
It was this pressure that forced President Obama to initially delay the decision in November. And it was this pressure, combined with the Republicans' overzealous and irresponsible demand of a 60-day deadline that forced him to reject the pipeline permit.
Our pressure overcame the lies and propaganda of Republicans and oil giants, and their threats of massive political consequences if he didn't approve it.
Rejecting this pipeline was the right thing to do. But by rejecting it purely on a technicality, there are many things President Obama did not do:
•He did not close the door to this pipeline once and for all. In fact, he specifically opened the door to the southern portion of Keystone XL, which would allow this oil to be exported overseas -- the real reason TransCanada wanted Keystone XL in the first place.
•He did not explain the imperative of stopping not just this project, but others that will expedite disastrous warming. Just the opposite -- he touted the need to expand oil and gas drilling and made no mention of clean energy.
•He did not refute the lies of Republicans and polluters, whose biggest "jobs plan" is a foreign oil pipeline whose chief purpose is to export oil overseas.
The time to lead us away from dirty fuels and prevent escalating global catastrophes from climate change is here. And President Obama still can.
Tell President Obama: It's time to lead on climate. Make the case in your State of the Union Address.
Until President Obama makes a clear and compelling case to the American people for sweeping action to reduce our dependence on any and all fossil fuels, the pace of our transition will remain slower than what is required to stem the onrushing danger of climate pollution.
Until he refutes the false choice presented by Big Oil and Republicans -- that we must choose between a clean energy future and a stable economy - he empowers and remains vulnerable to their attacks.
Until he shows his commitment to clean energy over dirty fossil fuels, the energy of progressive activists will be spent fighting individual bad decisions, instead of pushing to support needed progressive policies.
And ultimately, until President Obama takes the opportunity for a true moment of leadership that publicly raises the stakes on the fight to stabilize our climate, the State of our Union will remain deeply clouded.
More at the linkThis is why activism matters.
Six months ago, the Obama Administration was set to... more
-
-
By Bill Walker
Today’s decision by President Obama to reject, at least temporarily, the permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline — which would carry the most climate-wrecking crude oil on Earth from Canada’s tar sands to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast — is unquestionably good news. But by itself it won’t stop tar sands oil from flowing, or even keep it out of the United States.
This is not yet the death knell for the pipeline. Initial reports say TransCanada Pipelines may be allowed to reapply after a new route is selected that doesn’t endanger the Ogallala Aquifer, a vital source of fresh water for the Great Plains. TransCanada says it’s already got the new route picked out, although moving forward would require a lengthy environmental review process. And in the Senate, pipeline boosters are hatching a plan to hand the final decision back to Congress by invoking its power to regulate commerce with other nations.
But as the decision has been publicly framed, it’s always been a red herring.
Despite proponents’ claims, Keystone XL is not about the U.S. ensuring a secure supply of oil from a friendly neighbor, or creating construction jobs — a report by the Cornell Global Labor Institute says it would kill more jobs than it creates. Neither is it, strictly speaking, about keeping the oil in the ground, which NASA climate scientist James Hansen says is the difference between keeping alive any hope of stabilizing the climate or “game over.”
Existing pipelines already bring about 1.5 million barrels of tar sands crude a day to the U.S., making Canada — not OPEC, as many people believe — the nation’s No. 1 source of oil. Keystone XL would actually be an extension of an existing line that carries tar sands oil as far as Oklahoma. From there, most of it goes to Midwestern refineries. With Keystone XL’s approval now more in doubt, other companies are proposing smaller projects to carry tar sands oil from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. Increasingly, oil is also moving by tanker truck or rail — not as efficient as pipelines, but still profitable as oil gets more scarce and expensive.
Why is reaching the Gulf Coast so important to tar sands producers? Because oil from Keystone XL was never destined for Americans’ gas tanks. From massive refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, which have recently invested billions in upgrades to handle the thick, toxic crude oil from the tar sands, oil companies will produce fuel for export to Europe, where prices are higher, or to the growth markets of Latin America and Asia.
TransCanada, Canadian producers and the Canadian government have tried to brand the tar sands as “ethical oil” — in contrast to crude from the Middle East, violence-torn Nigeria or anti-capitalist Venezuela — although environmentalists question how ethical an energy source can be that disrupts the climate, destroys the forest, pollutes water and infringes on tribal lands. (Disclosure: Last year I worked for a coalition of environmental groups opposing the pipeline.)
The fact is that the U.S. doesn’t need tar sands oil. Fuel consumption is flat and will continue to decline as cars become more fuel-efficient. At the same time, domestic oil production is reaching historic highs. It just doesn’t make sense for TransCanada to invest $7 billion in a pipeline to supply a declining market. Tar sands oil production is projected to double by 2020, so the Canadian oil industry desperately needs access to growth markets.
To try to push the U.S. into permitting the pipeline, the Canadian government has threatened to play the China card. If Keystone is rejected, they say, they’ll simply sell the oil to fuel-thirsty China. Another Canadian company, Enbridge Energy, wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline to carry tar sands oil to the West Coast for export to China and other Asian markets. That pipeline wouldn’t cross American soil, so U.S. approval is not needed.
However, opposition to Northern Gateway is even fiercer than the U.S. campaign against Keystone XL, and many observers doubt it will ever be built. That seems to support the argument that stopping Keystone XL will strand the tar sands oil — but there are other twists to the story.
Companies controlled by the Chinese government are quietly buying into Canadian tar sands ventures, and you have to figure that with or without a West Coast pipeline, they’ll find some way to get the oil to China. Finally, the Canadian government is exploring ways to ship tar sands oil through eastern Canada to the Atlantic for export to Europe.
It’s a complicated narrative, and we’ve barely scratched the surface. Bottom line: Keystone XL would mean Canada gets the money, China (or some other foreign buyer) gets the oil and the U.S. gets the pollution, the pipeline spills and the injustice of having a foreign company seize American citizens’ property.
For those reasons — which have little to do with halting global climate change — Obama’s decision was a no-brainer. But there is added symbolic importance. Permitting Keystone would have signaled that America was still committed to the dirty energy sources of the past. A final rejection of it would be a sign to the world that the U.S. is ready to lead on climate change.
More at the linkBy Bill Walker
Today’s decision by President Obama to reject, at least... more
-
-
-
Recent debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline has turned a spotlight on Canada's controversial and oil-rich tar sands, which would be the source of crude oil flowing through the pipe to the Gulf of Mexico. Tar sands oil has faced stiff criticism from environmental groups, which say that it's far dirtier than its Middle Eastern counterpart despite claims from the Canadian government and industry groups that they keep a close eye on environmental impact.
But long before the Keystone XL became a cause célèbre, tar sands oil was already ubiquitous in America: It goes to fuel our cars and corporations' trucking fleets, and it's used in the production of products from aluminum cans to asphalt. Starting last year, San Francisco-based environmental advocacy group Forest Ethics launched a campaign to encourage American companies to boycott tar sands oil and, specifically, the refineries that process it (below).
Using data from the federal Energy Information Administration (which tracks imports of unprocessed crude oil), Forest Ethics compiled a list of nearly 50 US refineries that handle tar sands oil (MoJo made the above map based on that list). In these refineries, the heavy, molasses-like "bitumen" from the tar sands undergoes heating, blending, and other refining steps and comes out as useable fuel, ready to be pumped into a long-haul semi. What the map shows, Forest Ethics campaign director Aaron Sanger said, is that "unless you take action to take tar sands oil out of your footprint, you've got it in your footprint."
By "you," of course, Sanger doesn't mean you, dear reader: When you fill up at the local gas station, there's really no way to know from which refinery your fuel is coming. (Chances are it has been blended from several before reaching the pump.) Instead, he's referring to companies whose in-house or contracted trucking fleets buy fuel in bulk directly from refineries or through a broker (known as a "jobber" in industry parlance). Forest Ethics has persuaded 14 such companies, including Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and LUSH Cosmetics, and Chiquita, to downsize their transportation footprint, in part by avoiding fuel from any of the refineries on the map.
"You and I as individuals don't have much leverage over the fuel sources," Sanger said. "But big companies do."
At stake is a serious chunk of change: The tar sands industry was worth $13.4 billion in 2009 (down from $20.5 billion in 2008), and oil from Alberta, the western Canadian province the tar sands call home, made up 15 percent of American crude imports, according to statistics from the Albertan government.
Consequently, applying that leverage is no easy task. Over the last couple years, Sanger and colleagues have reached out to 200 big companies, and in every instance when one agreed to investigate its fuel sourcing, there was tar sands oil in the mix, he said. TA Travel Centers, a major "over-the-road" fuel supplier to trucking fleets, found that it buys fuel directly from a quarter of the refineries on the map. For companies on the Forest Ethics list like Walgreens, cutting tar sands oil out means negotiating with fuel brokers and/or truck refilling stations and the possibility of not renewing contracts with those who are unable or unwilling to avoid tar sands oil. Sanger said that Trader Joe's, for example, has made avoidance of tar sands oil a contractual obligation for its distributors.
More at the linkRecent debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline has turned a spotlight on... more
-
-
Durban, South Africa (6/12/11)–Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation and the Indigenous Environmental Network held a welcome party to formally receive Environment Minister Peter Kent and his tar sands pushers to the UN climate negotiations. As conference delegates entered the negotiations this morning, the welcoming committee handed out samples of tar sands on behalf of Kent, along with tourism brochures for
Canada’s scenic tar sands.
Canada’s refusal to commit to a binding climate agreement has made it a pariah state at the negotiations. Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation and the Indigenous Environmental Network hope their humble gifts will make the tar sands pushers feel right at home.
“Canada’s cozy relationship with oil industry has inhibited them from making real progress at these negotiations,” said Karen Rooney. “It’s clear that they have chosen to put the needs of polluters ahead of people.”
Over the past few months, Canada has been lobbying foreign governments to weaken both their climate policies and fuel quality standards to protect the trade of tar sands oil.
Meanwhile, the health and livelihoods of many Indigenous communities downstream from the tar sands continue to be threatened due to toxic tailings and the destruction of the boreal forest.
“Indigenous communities have been turned into sacrifice zones in Canada to feed our fossil fuel addiction. We are here to stand up for those communities against Canada’s pollution peddling and support just climate solutions,” stated Ben Powless, of the Indigenous Environmental Network.
A press conference will follow at 3:30pm in the Kosi Palm press room in the ICC.
More at the linkDurban, South Africa (6/12/11)–Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation and the... more
-
-
In Canada and the United Kingdom, Indigenous activists and their supporters targeted Shell today for violating agreements made with Indigenous communities in Canada. In Durban, site of the ongoing UN climate talks, activists from Canada joined activists from Africa to denounce Shell and their repeated violations of human rights and environmental regulations. Appearing outside a Shell refinery, a number of Indigenous activists joined with youth from Canada and Africa to support the community of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), who recently announced their lawsuit against Shell.
“Shell has left a trail of broken promises and ravaged eco-systems. They have been pushing their dirty fossil fuels plans on every country they can bully. It’s time to stand up and say get the Shell out of there, we don’t want your broken promises anymore,” declared Eriel Deranger, a community member of ACFN and director of Sierra Club Prairies.
“We’re drawing the line, and taking a strong stand against Shell. ACFN wants no further developments until Shell is brought to justice and our broader concerns about the cumulative impacts in the region are addressed,” stated Allan Adam, Chief of ACFN.
“The destructive tar sands operations by Shell and other big oil companies are destroying the land and violating our people’s rights to hunt, trap and fish. Canada is a willing partner in these crimes and other human rights abuses caused by fossil fuels and climate change,” noted Daniel T’seleie, an Indigenous youth from northern Canada, and a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation.
“Shell has a history of devastation across the African continent that we are well aware of. Our peoples and our environments have been turned into a colony for companies like Shell, who profit from our suffering. Knowing full well the extent of brutality that Shell has delivered to my fellow Nigerians, we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Canada standing up to say ‘get the Shell out of here’,” emphasized Nnimmo Bassey, director of Environmental Rights Action (Nigeria) and winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize.
“Ironically, Durban, the site of this year’s international climate talks, has struggled against the aging Shell refinery that is the symbol of climate change and environmental injustice. Shell has been responsible for crimes against local citizens, where refinery accidents are common and where rusting pipelines have leaked more than 1 million litres of petrol. We strictly oppose plans to bring Tar Sands oil to South Africa, and agree that Shell must be held accountable for its violations against communities,” claimed Bobby Peek, director of Groundwork in Durban.
More at the linkIn Canada and the United Kingdom, Indigenous activists and their supporters targeted... more
-
-
Republican lawmakers in Congress introduced legislation on Wednesday that would require the Obama administration to issue a construction permit for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days unless the president decided the project was not in the national interest.
Sponsored by Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, the legislation is a sharp rejoinder to the State Department’s recent decision to delay a verdict on approval of the $7 billion project for at least a year while it considers alternative routes that bypass environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska.
That announcement enraged supporters of the pipeline, who have accused Mr. Obama of seeking to placate his supporters until after next year’s presidential election in lieu of signing off on a project that will create jobs.
“Building the TransCanada Keystone pipeline now is a dramatic opportunity to change that energy and national security equation,” Mr. Lugar said in a statement. “President Obama has the opportunity of creating 20,000 new jobs now. Incredibly, he has delayed a decision until after the 2012 election apparently in fear of offending a part of his political base and even risking the ire of construction unions who support the pipeline.”
Dozens of Republican senators and leaders of the party are backing the legislation, which seems unlikely to pass in the Democratic-controlled Senate unless Mr. Lugar can muster bipartisan support for the bill.
The State Department put off the Keystone XL decision because of mounting pressure from lawmakers in Nebraska and from environmental groups that pleaded with the Obama administration not to allow the pipeline to traverse the delicate Sand Hills region of the state.
Soon afterward, the pipeline company, TransCanada, agreed to route the pipeline around the Sand Hills area. But the State Department has said it must nonetheless initiate a fresh environmental review process for any new route, a process that could take 12 to 18 months.
Opponents of Keystone XL condemned the Republican bill, pointing out that the State Department’s inspector general had opened an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of the environmental review of the pipeline proposal, which has been faulted by critics as lax.
“I will vigorously oppose any efforts by Republicans in Congress to legislate a rubber-stamp approval for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline,” Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, said in a statement. “At a time when the State Department inspector general is conducting a special inquiry into possible conflicts of interest related to the State Department’s handling of this project, it is completely inappropriate to try to short-circuit the thorough environmental review process federal law requires.”
House Republicans with the Energy and Commerce Committee have said they will discuss the Keystone XL delay at a hearing on the project on Friday.Republican lawmakers in Congress introduced legislation on Wednesday that would... more
-
-
Pipeline operator TransCanada Corp. said it would back the rerouting of a controversial US-Canada oil pipeline, after the Obama administration delayed its final decision on the project.
The company said it supported legislation in the US state of Nebraska that would ensure the Keystone XL pipeline does not pass through the state’s Sand Hills area, which features important wetlands and a sensitive ecosystem.
“I am pleased to tell you that the positive conversations we have had with Nebraska leaders have resulted in legislation that respects the concerns of Nebraskans and supports the development of the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for energy and oil pipelines.
“I can confirm the route will be changed and Nebraskans will play an important role in determining the final route.”
Pourbaix said the proposed legislation “is a critical step” in moving the project forward.
Last week, the US administration said it would study an alternate route for the pipeline to bring petroleum from Canada’s western oil sands to the Gulf of Mexico, saying a final decision may not come until 2013 — after next year’s presidential elections.
After months of wrangling, the State Department said it needed more time to assess its environmental implications.
The department said its move was based on specific concerns about the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, which is along the proposed pipeline route from Canada’s Alberta province to refineries in Texas.
On Thursday, US officials said it was “reasonable to expect” that its review process “could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013″ — after President Barack Obama bids for re-election in November 2012.
The project puts two of Obama’s goals — energy independence and cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions — at odds. It also pits environmentalists and labor, both usually key Democratic Party supporters, against each other.
Alberta Premier Alison Redford, in Washington to meet US officials about the project, hailed the latest news on the efforts to find a new route.
“I think it’s good news today, it’s different circumstances than we had last week,” she said.
“It’s something I can be more optimistic about now than I could have been this morning, as we all could have been this morning,” Redford said.
“So, back on track? I think that in terms of the regulatory process, while it had slowed down, I didn’t feel we were off track. So we’ll say that we’re optimistic still.”
More at the linkPipeline operator TransCanada Corp. said it would back the rerouting of a... more
-
-
PLEASE SHARE this Thought Bubble by RETWEETING:
TWEET:
#Canada hates unethical oil: http://clicktotweet.com/qZt7B | And so does @NaomiAKlein and @SapienceFilm. The world needs more Canada.
Alberta's Tar Sands are a true embarrassment for us Canadians; not only is it a human rights crisis for the Indigenous communities living in Alberta and British Columbia, but an environmental disaster of epic proportions.
Many pipelines transport this dirty oil all around North America, and our exports make us the United States' biggest provider of oil. In the last few years, a new extension to a current pipeline has been proposed to carry Tar Sands oil all the way to Texas, putting some of North America's most fragile ecosystems and waterways in serious peril.
Bill McKibben and his team at 350.org helped spearhead a movement called Tar Sands Action (http://www.tarsandsaction.org), enlisting the help of people all over the US and Canada willing to express their dismay and anger about this possible new pipeline.
As of November 6th, thousands of people have risked arrest, standing in front of the White House, as well as Canada's Parliament in Ottawa, to protest.PLEASE SHARE this Thought Bubble by RETWEETING:
TWEET:
#Canada hates unethical... more
-
-
With the Keystone XL pipeline on hold, the giant companies tapping Canada’s oil sands will turn to Plan B — existing pipelines to the United States.
Those pipelines, which now carry slightly more than 1 million barrels a day from Canada’s oil sands to the United States, can be expanded by adding pumping stations. Some companies, notably Enbridge, already have plans to boost the capacity of their lines and speed the journey of crude from Alberta to Texas.
.“It’s inevitable that it will get here. This oil will have to find a market,” said Fadel Gheit, oil analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. “All these competing pipelines are going to rethink their strategy.”
That would disappoint foes of the Keystone XL pipeline, who hope that the delay or defeat of the project would impede the growth in output from the oil sands, whose exploitation releases 5 to 15 percent more greenhouse gases than the average crude used in the United States.
Asked what the Keystone delay would mean for oil sands development, a spokesman for Chevron, which owns 20 percent of one of the oil sands projects, said: “The Keystone decision has no implications for Chevron.”
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers forecasts that oil sands output will nearly double from 1.5 million barrels a day in 2010 to 2.9 million barrels a day by 2020. Proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline warned that a rejection of the project would lead to exports to China via a pipeline to Canada’s west coast, or shipments to the United States using barges, trucks and railroads, thus creating a larger carbon footprint.
Many Canadians prefer a pipeline to be built from Alberta to eastern Canada, which still imports oil from Saudi Arabia.
But oil analysts said Friday that existing pipelines to the United States offer the easiest and most likely fallback plans.
Enbridge is a likely choice for oil companies seeking additional pipeline space over the next two or three years. The company’s 1,000-mile long Alberta Clipper line, which went into operation last year, goes from Hardesty, Alberta, to Superior, Wis., and has an initial capacity of 450,000 barrels a day. But it can be pushed up to 800,000 barrels a day, the company says. That alone would make up for half of the capacity Keystone XL would have added.
more at the linkWith the Keystone XL pipeline on hold, the giant companies tapping Canada’s oil... more
-
-
We need more than sound bytes in an election year. Now, I am really not too hopeful considering that BP will once again be allowed to drill in the Gulf and Shell is going to be allowed to drill the Arctic. So while this action alone even if it isn't approved won't actually stop the tarsands, or stop BP, or stop Shell, or stop Chevron, it will stop a catastrophe waiting to happen to our water, agriculture, climate balance and health. And President Obama, I don't really think you have any other choice. You need to make the right one, and not because it is close to an election year, but because you meant what you said in 2007 when you were running the first time. Actions speak louder than words.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/04/361628/keystone-xl-pipeline-ad/We need more than sound bytes in an election year. Now, I am really not too hopeful... more
-
