Put That in Your Pipeline and Smoke It (h/t DawnN)
Congressman Fred Upton says Keystone XL pipeline can 'essentially eliminate' U.S. dependency on Middle Eastern oil imports
...And an energy economist says (not in so many words) that Upton's a big fat liar.
U.S. Rep Fred Upton said that the United States can "essentially eliminate" dependence on Middle Eastern oil imports by allowing the Keystone XL pipeline to be created.
Upton was interviewed by CNBC a day after the House passed the North American-Made Energy Security Act, which would speed up the final decisions whether to approve TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline.
The nearly 2,000-mile pipeline would provide 1.3 million barrels of oil to the United States each day as well as create more than 100,000 jobs, according to a release from Upton.
Upton told CNBC:
"According to the Department of Energy, this one project will "essentially eliminate" oil imports from the Middle East. It will create more than 100,000 jobs and strengthen our relationship with a close ally and trading partner. A project like this should be a no-brainer, and there's simply no good reason it has been stuck in the State Department's red tape for nearly three years."
...
In an interview with Reuters, energy economist Phil Verleger said the idea that the pipeline would "essentially eliminate" Middle Eastern oil imports a "fairy tale."
"The United States believes in free trade, and if the oil is priced right, we will get it from the Middle East," he is quoted as saying in the article.
The pipeline has caused concern among environmentalists because there is no regulation that differs between regular crude oil and diluted bitumen.
A press release issued by the National Wildlife Federation, points that TransCanada's newest pipeline, Keystone, has leaked 12 times in the past year. The pipeline was closed for a week in May by federal regulators.
The type of oil that will be shipped in Keystone XL pipeline, diluted bitumen, is the same kind that spilled more than 800,000 gallons into the Kalamazoo River in July 2010.
State Dept's Timetable for Keystone XL Pipeline Decision Irks Both Sides
Rep. Lee Terry and Sen. Mike Johanns might share some of the same constituents in Nebraska. But the two Republicans have mighty vast differences in their respective approaches to a controversial $7 billion oil sands pipeline seemingly destined to slice through the biological heart and lungs of their home state.
Terry's "fierce urgency of now" approach is reflected in a fast-tracked bill the seven-term lawmaker authored that would force the Obama administration to reach a decision about TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline by Nov. 1. It soared through the full GOP-majority House Tuesday evening on a 279-147 vote.
However, Johanns has predicted that the North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938) doesn't have a prayer of sneaking through the upper chamber.
Alternatively, the rookie senator and former Agriculture Department secretary has politely but firmly coaxed the State Department to reconsider sullying Nebraska's fragile sandhills landscape and thirst-quenching Ogallala Aquifer with a 36-inch diameter underground pipeline.
Conservation organizations dismissed the House vote as a handout to the fossil fuels industry during a Tuesday teleconference with reporters.
It's one more indication that House Republican leadership is pushing harmful and destructive bills at the behest of Big Oil instead of becoming serious about solving the country's severe energy policy shortcomings, said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president for government affairs with the League of Conservation Voters.
The White House announced its opposition to Terry's bill Monday. A two-paragraph statement from the Office of Management and Budget labeled the bill as "unnecessary" because the State Department has already committed to reaching a decision by the end of this year.
"Further, the bill conflicts with long-standing executive branch procedures regarding the authority of the president and the secretary of state," the statement read. "[It] could prevent the thorough consideration of complex issues which could have serious security, safety, environmental and other ramifications."
TransCanada has shown a more unruffled response. Over-confident, even.
"We'll let the process in Congress take the steps it is taking," TransCanada spokesman James Millar told SolveClimate News in a telephone interview. "We'll let the politicians deal with that. More of our focus is on our relationship with the Department of State."
TransCanada is encouraged that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems intent on following through with a decision by Dec. 31.
Clinton's involvement is based on the fact that it's an international deal, and the make-or-break decision lies with her.
Thus far, Keystone XL has been under review by U.S. authorities just shy of three years. December would mark 40 months. TransCanada's other similarly named heavy crude pipeline — known simply as Keystone — took 23 months to approve, Millar pointed out.
...
[W]atchdogs remain leery that despite all the talk about careful review, federal authorities are intent on giving the green light to Keystone XL in the name of energy security and in response to pressure from oil interests.
They are curious how the State Department can continue to issue what they label superficial instead of substantive documents when EPA specialists have insisted they respond to a litany of direct queries. Never mind, they add, that the Keystone pipeline has experienced a dozen leaks since it opened in June 2010, that Keystone XL proponents are overpromising on the number of jobs for Americans and that some economists claim Midwesterners will pay 10 cents to 20 cents more per gallon of gas if the proposed pipeline is built.
"It's clear we need a better regulatory structure," Tony Iallonardo, a spokesman with the National Wildlife Foundation, told SolveClimate News in an interview. "We still have the view that the process is broken. The State Department does not have the expertise in the oil market, public health or public safety to make these decisions."
Having Clinton's team proceed with a Keystone XL review is putting the cart before the horse, he continued. Oil sands crude is heavier and more toxic and corrosive than conventional oil, he said, adding that the recent array of pipeline ruptures should serve as an alarm that pipeline operators need to be able to account for exactly what type of fuel is flowing when and where.
The article is quite comprehensive and link-heavy, and well worth taking the time to read.
If you've had enough of this story, feel free to move on to the next one. For those seeking more complete background, SolveClimateNews is a gold mine. From February:
Pipeline Corrosion and Safety Issues Take Spotlight in Keystone XL Debate
Environmental organizations are recommending that the U.S. State Department put a controversial and potentially dangerous Alberta-to-Texas oil pipeline on hold until safety issues are fully understood and addressed via government oversight.
Pipelines transporting oil sands crude raise the risk of spills and damage to waterways, aquifers, ecosystems and communities because they are carrying a highly corrosive and acidic blend of diluted bitumen and volatile natural gas liquid condensate, according to the report released this week.
...
At issue is Keystone XL, a 1702-mile, $7 billion pipeline that Calgary-based TransCanada wants to construct from tar sands mines in its home province of Alberta to oil refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.
...
Due to the international nature of Keystone XL, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's team is tasked with granting a thumbs up or down to TransCanada's request for a presidential permit to build and operate infrastructure being designed to pump up to 900,000 barrels of heavy crude daily.
...
The Natural Resources Defense Council joined research forces with the Pipeline Safety Trust, the National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club to publish "Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks."
"Tar sands extraction in Canada destroys boreal forests and wetlands, causes high levels of greenhouse gas pollution, and leaves behind immense lakes of toxic waste," the report states. "Less well understood, however, is the increased risk and potential harm that can be caused by transporting the raw form of tar sands oil [bitumen] through pipelines to refineries."
...
The 16-page report(.pdf) describes diluted bitumen as a raw and thick form of tar sands oil that is significantly more acidic and corrosive than standard oil and requires increased heat and pressure to move through pipelines. Those attributes make it more difficult to clean up after a spill.
Plus, that different chemical composition — five to 10 times as much sulfur as conventional crude and more chloride salts — can weaken pipelines and make them susceptible to breaking during pressure spikes. As well, researchers found that refiners are discovering more quartz sand and other solid material in diluted bitumen that essentially sandblasts pipe interiors.
An analysis in the report points out that Alberta's pipeline system — which is newer and carries more oil sands — has experienced 16 times more safety incidences due to internal corrosion than the U.S. pipeline system.
...
Diluted bitumen is the primary product transported on Keystone, which runs from Alberta to Illinois and Oklahoma. Both conventional oil and tar sands oil are shipped via the Lakehead system that goes from the Canadian border to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan.
If built, Keystone XL's six-state U.S. portion would stretch 1,375 miles through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas. Leaks of diluted bitumen on that pipeline would threaten the Ogallala Aquifer, a massive underground water source in the Midwest and Great Plains that supports agriculture and provides drinking water for millions.
Michigan's Kalamazoo River is still fouled by the aftermath of a rupture along an Enbridge pipeline between Indiana and Ontario that dumped more than 800,000 gallons of oil last July. Submerged oil means an Environmental Protection Agency-enforced ban on wading, swimming and fishing along a 30-mile stretch of the river remains in place.
The report highlights how pipeline spills in the Upper Midwest threaten the Great Lakes, which account for one-fifth of the world's freshwater. It also describes the risks that pipe ruptures in the central U.S. pose to other iconic waterways and already-compromised landscapes that provide crucial habitat for birds, fish and other creatures.
...
A Canadian regulatory agency issued a lengthy news release [...] claiming NRDC's analysis of pipeline data were flawed and resulted in misleading and incorrect conclusions.
However, NRDC countered the statement, saying that Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Board based its argument on an earlier and incomplete version of the report from December.
From early June of this year:
EPA Smacks State Department Again: Oil Sands Pipeline Analysis 'Insufficient'
EPA authorities are still far from satisfied with the State Department’s ongoing environmental review of a controversial 1,702-mile pipeline that would pump diluted bitumen from Alberta, Canada’s tar sands mines to Gulf Coast oil refineries.
The department’s second effort not only falls short by failing to fully address safety and oil spill risks along a less-than-satisfactory route of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline, but it also misses the mark on calculating lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, potential damage to wetlands and migratory birds, and the dangers to at-risk communities along the six-state route, according to an Environmental Protection Agency document released Tuesday.
EPA gave the State Department its lowest grade of “inadequate” back in July 2010 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team issued its first draft of the environmental review on Keystone XL. That harsh dressing-down forced the department to collect more data before completing a revamped draft in mid-April.
But evidently the State Department still hasn’t done enough homework.
Even though EPA bumped up its grade on this second attempt from “inadequate” to “insufficient information,” the agency noted that it has “identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided … to provide adequate protection to the environment.”
...
With two drafts completed, the State Department is now tasked with writing what is supposed to be its final environmental review of the Keystone XL.
...
Despite the environmental hoops the State Department seems to have to jump through, watchdogs still fear authorities are intent on giving the green light to Keystone XL in the name of energy security and in response to pressure from oil interests.
If that happens, rules under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) allow other Cabinet secretaries to challenge that decision. That would put the pipeline ball in the president’s court.
In addition to EPA, other “cooperating agencies” on the Keystone XL review team include the Departments of Energy and Transportation.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which coordinates NEPA, is responsible for ensuring that the State Department’s environmental impact statement is executed correctly, National Wildlife Federation senior vice president Jeremy Symons said in a teleconference about Keystone XL with reporters Tuesday.
“So, ultimately the buck stops with the president on this,” emphasized Symons, who said earlier he was alarmed the president wasn’t already intervening in what he called a broken process. “I certainly believe President Obama needs to get more involved with this process because the State Department isn’t handling it appropriately.”
Then there's the involvement of those Fabulous Koch Boys.
Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved
What's been left out of the ferocious debate over the pipeline [...] is the prospect that if president Obama allows a permit for the Keystone XL to be granted, he would be handing a big victory and great financial opportunity to Charles and David Koch, his bitterest political enemies and among the most powerful opponents of his clean economy agenda.
The two brothers together own virtually all of Koch Industries Inc. — a giant oil conglomerate headquartered in Wichita, Kan., with annual revenues estimated to be $100 billion.
A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.
...
The Koch brothers are not run-of-the-mill political opponents. An investigative report last year by the New Yorker magazine on the secretive and deep-pocketed pair have shown them to be "waging a war against Obama." They have bankrolled the Tea Party movement, climate change skepticism and right-wing think tanks, such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Through Flint Hills Resources LP based in Wichita, Kan., the Koch brothers provided $1 million in 2010 to the failed effort to suspend California’s groundbreaking 2006 global warming law.
After the 2010 midterm elections, they have become established at the center of GOP power, according to The Los Angeles Times. The paper reported this week that Koch Industries and its employees formed the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
...
"The Koch brothers are architects of the dirty energy strategy, both in Washington and through their commercial interests," Jeremy Symons of the Reston, Va.-based National Wildlife Federation said. "It wouldn't make any sense at all for the president to give this pipeline project the thumbs up and undermine his own clean energy efforts."
Once again, much more and many links at the originals. |