Topic
Diverse foes of TransCanada project fear catastrophic oil leak into vast water source for US breadbasket states.
Highway sign posted by South Dakota farmers. Photo courtesy Keloland Television.
China craves oil sands fuel. Ottawa wants to diversify its US market. So huge amounts of crude will have to pass through a risky Second Narrows.
The facts, now out, are detailed here. The moral reckoning has yet to begin.
A Calgary-based pipeline company could soon start shipping Canadian oil across one of the biggest freshwater aquifers in the world -- part of a proposed fossil fuel mega-highway from Alberta to Texas.
Critics worry that a major leak could ruin drinking water for millions of Americans and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.
The project developer, TransCanada, has applied for special permits to build its Keystone XL pipeline with thinner-than-normal steel, possibly saving the company more than a billion dollars.
A fast-growing body of ranchers, farmers, green groups, U.S. senators and even the CEO of Google wonders whether the project's risk is worth it -- especially as crude spewing from BP's ruptured offshore rig coats white sand beaches black along the Florida coastline.
Add to their concerns that portions of the pipeline will cross an active earthquake zone. And despite the promises of pipeline company executives, big leaks happen every year.
If TransCanada gets U.S. regulatory approval, crude from Alberta's much-maligned oil sands could start oozing south as early as 2013 (see map of proposed pipeline route by clicking here).
The company has stressed repeatedly that it's committed to the highest safety standards -- that comparisons to the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico are "completely unfair."
Yet critics see little distinction. "BP didn't think their well would ever leak," Cindy Kreifels, executive vice president of the Nebraska-based Groundwater Foundation told The Tyee. "They supposedly had disaster plans in place and it has not made a difference."
Vital water source threatened?
Earlier this month, U.S. officials extended the public comment period for Keystone XL by two weeks -- the second extension so far.
Opponents have been growing in size, stature and volume as TransCanada seeks approval to build a pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, to Gulf Coast refineries in Texas. The proposed conduit is phase two of a US$12 billion TransCanada energy corridor. Phase One -- known simply as Keystone -- is largely built, and crude from Alberta's oil sands has already started flowing to Illinois.
The Keystone XL portion would cross six mid-western states on its journey south. If completed, the entire system -- phases one and two -- could transport 1.1 million barrels of Alberta fuel a day, close to the full output of that province's oil sands industry.
In a series of public hearings over recent weeks, farmers and ranchers have fretted about potential leaks along the pipeline's 3,200 kilometre route. (Watch a video news report featuring some of those farmers in South Dakota here.)
The stakes are extremely high. Keystone XL would plough across the north-eastern tip of the Ogallala aquifer as it traversed Nebraska. The Ogallala is one of the largest sources of fresh groundwater on Earth, spanning eight states and providing drinking water for two million people.
More than $20 billion worth of crops -- including corn, wheat, sorghum and cotton -- depend on it. And in Nebraska, where one third of the workforce is directly employed in agricultural industries, the Ogallala is an economic lynchpin.
Locals take great pride in their aquifer, Kreifels said, sometimes referring to it as Nebraska's "Rocky Mountains."
"It's considered a prize resource. If we don't take care of it, it would be very difficult to live in this state," she said.
Earthquakes and leaky pipes
Several factors compound the danger of building a pipeline across the Ogallala, according to green groups opposed to the project.
"Some portions of the aquifer are so close to the surface that any pipeline leak would almost immediately contaminate a large portion of the water," reads a recent report from the Nebraska Wildlife Federation.
Because groundwater drips through sand, clay, and gravel, cleanup could become a logistical nightmare. Nebraska also sits atop an active seismic zone, where earthquakes -- one at a 4.3 magnitude in 2002 -- and tremors shake the ground.
And critics note that despite the best efforts of pipeline operators, leaks are inevitable. Just last week, a Chevron pipeline spilled 33,000 gallons of oil from a "quarter-size" hole into a Salt Lake City creek.
This May, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline spewed thousands of barrels of crude near Fairbanks, Alaska -- the same pipeline that leaked 267,000 gallons four years ago.
TransCanada has applied for special permits from the U.S. government to build Keystone XL with thinner steel than required and pump oil at higher pressures. The Pipeline Safety Trust, an independent oversight group, estimated the company has the "potential to save many hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly exceeding a billion dollars."
The trust didn't see any safety issue, as long as regulators force TransCanada to be extra vigilant. That could mean inspecting 100 per cent of girth welds, for instance, instead of the 10 per cent mandated by federal law.
Cesar de Leon, a former deputy administrator with America's pipeline safety agency, agreed strict monitoring could lower risks. But as he told The World-Herald News Service, "I certainly think you'd be safer running at a lower pressure."
'We have a very safe system'
TransCanada has heard all the concerns, and vows that Keystone XL will exceed safety standards. There's nothing unique about its special permit application, spokesperson Terry Cunha told The Tyee.
The company has been pumping oil through thinner pipes across Canada since 1973, he said. TransCanada already received similar permits for phase one of its pipeline system.
Major leaks are unlikely, Cunha insists, because 24-7 monitoring will detect any drop in flow rate or pressure. Sections of pipeline can be isolated and crews dispatched immediately. "We have a very safe system," Cunha said.
Even still, the project's draft environmental impact statement admits error is always possible. "Although leak detection systems would be in place, some leaks might not be detected by the system," a summary reads. "A pinhole leak, for example, could potentially be undetectable for days or weeks."
TransCanada acknowledges that some pipeline sections run over very porous ground -- sandy soil which provides thin cover for the Ogallala aquifer. That same sand would stick to any spilt oil, the company argues, keeping leaks from spreading very far.
As for seismic activity? "The risk of pipeline rupture from earthquake ground motion would be considered minimal," reads the draft impact statement summary. And TransCanada vice-president Robert Jones had this to say about any comparisons to BP's Gulf spill disaster: "It's completely unfair."
Google CEO joins opposition
Unfair or not, TransCanada's assurances are coming under greater scrutiny than ever. Elected officials such as Nebraska State Senator Annette Dubas have questioned the Ogallala's safety, if pipeline plans go ahead.
Another, Democrat Congressman Jon Tester, has publicly mused whether TransCanada should be granted special construction permits, when safety waivers may have helped cause the BP spill. "I think it is incumbent on myself as a policy maker to say 'hold it,'" he told the New York Times.
Many opponents of the pipeline are attempting to cast the project as a step away from clean energy. Crude flowing from Canada to Texas will come from Alberta's oil sands, long considered by green groups to be one of the dirtiest fuel sources in the world.
Sandy bitumen there is extracted from large open pit mines or steamed out of the Earth. Producing this type of fuel creates an estimated three times as many carbon emissions as conventional oil.
California has already approved low carbon fuel standard legislation that would limit imports from the Alberta oil sands. Several other states are considering similar measures, though those proposals and others are being fought aggressively by Canadian officials and oil company lobbyists.
In early June, a letter signed by 254 "entrepreneurs, investors and professionals" urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to carefully consider the risks of TransCanada's proposal. Eric Schmidt, CEO and chairman of Google was one of the signatories.
"Building the Keystone XL pipeline could expose a vast area of the American heartland, including an important water source on which eight states depend, to the risk of oil leaks and spills," the letter read. "It will continue our dependence on yet another hard to access and risky fossil fuel."
If approved, construction on the pipeline could begin next year. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
18
Login or register to post comments
Toobad
2 years ago
Yea But.......
I agree completly...However, if we are going to move oil from the tar sands to the US....
Keep the damn pipeline in Alberta, as for the Americans, they use 25 million barrels per day, so as for the Americans complaining, toobad...
They need the oil, unlike here in B.C.....
Enbridge wants to risk the west coast, risk extinction of the orca, the fishery, they have no problem risking everything sacred to BCers/First nations, ...And for what, profits for Alberta, profits for the oil companies,we get a handful of jobs and a small stipend!
Oil from Russia and the middle east should go to China,oil from Alberta should go to the US.
The enbridge pipeline is an insurance policy for Alberta, if the US ever rejects the oil sands, China will take it.
Lastly, oil already moves from Alberta to the US...
Personally, I think the pipeline to Texas is smoke and mirrors, heavy pressure will kill the project, Enbridge will be the consolation prize.
Grania
2 years ago
Oil
I have this terrible thought. We are all going to choke on oil in the same way the wild life in the Gulf are choking, drowning and dying. At least we will deserve it for our greed and our apathy...
Karen D.
2 years ago
BP claimed they adhered to the 'highest standards' too
"The project developer, TransCanada, has applied for special permits to build its Keystone XL pipeline with thinner-than-normal steel, possibly saving the company more than a billion dollars."
and
The company has stressed repeatedly that it's committed to the highest safety standards -- that comparisons to the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico are "completely unfair."
I would say these paragraphs are a tad contradictory.
blackie
2 years ago
zero risk
How did we get to the point where the only acceptable risk for industrial projects like this is zero? Should we apply the same standard to everything we do? If so, don't get on a bus, don't get on an airplane, don't get out of bed in the morning.
This is almost laughable -- we can't build pipeline underground to get oil into the US, we can't build pipelines to the coast to get oil to offshore markets, and (I would guess) the next phase in the BP disaster will be a ban on offshore drilling.
My advice? Buy oil stocks, they are going to skyrocket over the next few years. Because if there's one constant in all of this, North Americans will NEVER change their lifestyles to reflect the much much lower availability of this nasty stuff. It will be interesting to see how many of these spoiled North American brats remain true to their environmental principles when they can't afford to drive to the corner store any more, let alone run an SUV.
Skywalker
2 years ago
Yes, zero tolerance
When the sole purpose of a project is to export stuff Canada needs just so the company can make a profit and we arrive at a shortage sooner then yes. Zero tolerance and send the carpetbaggers home. For domestic consumption purposes I will accept some risk.
morechatter
2 years ago
Rain, Rain Go Away
Its not the same Blackie, it just isn't because the risks are just not comparable as an Oil Spill affects everything. If a Gulf- sized spill happened in Canada's waters it would be impossible to contain for a number of reasons.
Canada just don't have the equipment or the training as Canadians only have 6 km of boom for the entire country, while 1400 km of boom have been deployed to the U.S. and didn't contain the spill. And what about regulations or the the lack of them would be differing regulations especia when it comes relief wells. “And there's no guarantee how quickly crews would be able to drill a relief well in the case of an epic size leak,” he says.
“Canada allows drilling in environmentally sensitive areas and doesn't conduct environmental assessments the way the United States does and that is why Canada is such a popular place to drill as Canada takes the biggest risks as wells are the deepest and waters are treatorous.
Canada's wells are strategically placed where there are high populations of marine life and the damage would be to much as the Gulf spill already is as the oil from the Gulf was destinted to fuel a war enablining man kind to go in for a kill of another kind.
A spill is a "Guarantee" but how soon a spill can be cleaned up or prevented from destroying the environnment there are absoulgtely "No Guarantees"
as Oil Spill in the Gulf is still a reality as experts have not been able to contain.
morechatter
2 years ago
All this Cheap Talk
And its cheap as Canadian Banks make record profits on foreign investments while Canadians sit on the sidelines working, working, working to stay alive as the jobless recovery takes it toil on Canadians. As Canadian banks boast of their record profits and their stability while Canadians aren't sure what their futures hold. Canada is a major contender as it brags of its stability as peace loving Canadians torture prisoners and fuel the war while destroying the environment.
G West
2 years ago
It's Tar Sands
Not Oil Sands..Up until this month the Tyee uniformly said 'Tar Sands' in articles about the Tar Sands - lately there seems to have been a move to adopt the politically correct 'oil sands' usage.
Why the curious change in editorial policy?
morechatter
2 years ago
Cough, Cough
Yes, what is the difference between the tar sands and the oil sands? As the outcome is the same as TILMA ensures Canada produces all the ILLMUD it can as its not only the waters that are cloudy but also the skys causing food shortages on land. Whats for "Dinner" a question so to be on the minds of many?
morechatter
2 years ago
Do You Want To Know What Happens Next?
Me neither as its just to hard to think or even really talk about and as much as we all try to rationalize it all to death no one is taking heed to nature as man does not live on bread alone, as water is a necessity to all that is living. I try to pretend it isn't happening the spill and the oil sands and the direction polticians are taking the country as Canada is more like a large petro station as its the banks that are cashing in, as Canadians must soon tighten their belts.
Banks say Canadians are borrowed to the brim and country must trim its deficit off the fat of the land and people. Only there is no fat as all is lean except those fat from eating the slop of the land. Banks say things are spilling all over the globe only its profits as Canada's Banks say they are not an island unto themselves. I was reading was it GM or one of those car companies that was considering getting into the Canada banking and why not it certainly has backed the auto all the way, as more than happy to cash in on the rising costs of a barrel. Wouldn't it be irony if it wash the same dealership that Canadians helped get dealership out of the hole so are only to happy to help dig one for Canadians,a black hole.
soleprobe
2 years ago
background noise
All this chatter as if Canadians owned the oil... Canadians are owned and themselves own nothing.... but at least they still let ya bark on a leash ta make ya feel important...
Per contra
2 years ago
Pipe Line or coastal route, China option
I wonder how many of the lobby groups that oppose the pipeline are getting funding from China. If the pipeline dies then the alternative is pipe the oil to the coast and load it into tankers. A real bad assumption is the tankers are heading south to USA. Once in the tanker and on the ocean (hopefully the tanker not the oil), it can go anywhere. And since China has lots of US dollars, they will gobbble it up. Anyway if it goes to China there is the ecological benefit that there is no recorded pollution when it is consumed )-:
My preference is slow down the flow, it is just going to be worth a lot more in the future.
Side comment - Take the Canadian/US strip-off test.
Go outside and check all the labels on your clothing, remove everything not made in North America, run for door before your arrested.
(-:
zalm
2 years ago
Gosh...
Why do I find it so hard to care about this one? If the US wants to pollute their own aquifer that they've been draining dry for the last eighty years, what do I care? If the only thing that will teach Americans is a good sharp kick in the goolies, why shouldn't I let them administer it to themselves?
The thin steel is a red herring, by the way. Steels are far more accurately mixed these days, rolling or forging far more accurately done, and the welding, setting and leak-detection process is far better than before too. If the company chooses to maintain their piping properly, materials manufacture is of no import. The thickest steel is just as likely to corrode if you don't maintain the cladding or polish the fuels or maintain your sacrifical anodes and what not.
The real issue, as always, is are we as Canadians prepared to sink into ignorance and penury as a petro-dollar state, and are the Americans prepared to follow us by continuing their prodigiously wasteful methods of empire-building through self-gratification?
John Greg
2 years ago
But zalm
You say:
Perhaps you/we need to care about this because when they pollute/drain their aquifers, guess whose aquifers they're going to pollute/drain next?
G West
2 years ago
Good point Zalm
We are increasingly in danger in this country of falling victim to what's known as the Dutch Paradox.
And it isn't just something that's been noted in relation to Dutch economic history....
To wit:
"Ten years from now, twenty years from now, you will see: oil will bring us ruin … Oil is the Devil’s excrement"...
Venezuelan politician Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/02/03/336434/
RickW
2 years ago
Yes, Mr. Beers........
Regarding G. West's query, tar vs oil:
Have "they" gotten to you?
zalm
2 years ago
John Greg
I would, except what do you think would happen to those aquifers on Canadian soil that it already crosses over? I'm sure you know the Ogallala is not the only one that pipeline will cross over.
As long as Canadians continue to think like Americans, there is little we can do about it, and a shocking number of people on the Prairies think like Americans, even in Saskatchewan. I'm going to continue to try to protect BC - that's about the only province I CAN protect - so that when Alberta's and Saskatchewan's water is gone, the continental divide doesn't get regraded to send water east instead of west.
I know I sound contrary here, but as long as resources are a provincial responsibility, there truly is little I can do about any of it, except here in BC. And sometimes not even much here.
Besides, it's much bigger than just water, down there in America. They're not only pumping their aquifer dry, they're fracking their aquifer to find gas, and they're fracking their farm policy to get more oil to burn in cars. They're fracking their military to project corporate power acoss the globe, to no discernible benefit of Americans except for the wealthy 1/2 of 1%. They're fracking their educational system to produce drones instead of thinkers. They're fracking their taxation system in the mistaken belief that they're too highly taxed at home, and there aren't really any corporate tax dollars to tax anyway. They've completely fracked their banking system - bailouts notwithstanding, the credit system is irrepairably damaged and the company...er... country is massively overbought by about 600%. No country can withstand that kind of devaluation.
And above all, they're fracking their constitution in the mistaken belief that they're protecting their liberty. You think we can argue with that? Let 'em self-destruct. Pick off the smart ones as they stream across the border, and insulate ourselves from the rest with trade barriers. If no dollars flow, neither will the exploiters.
zalm
2 years ago
Quite right, GWest
And thanks for the comparison with Dutch Paradox - I hadn't heard of that one.