Third oil sand pipeline hits roadblock, delayed for further study

In the United States, there are currently three major tar sands pipeline projects, in varying stages of approval or development: Keystone, Keystone XL, and Alberta Clipper. (Sierra Club)

With respect to the Keystone Project, the Department of State issued a Presidential Permit for the pipeline crossing of the U.S. border in March 2008.  In relation to the Alberta Clipper Project, On August 20, 2009, the Department of State issued a Presidential Permit and approved the final environmental impact statement.

The Keystone XL Project, not yet given a Presidential Permit to proceed, has recently run into some hurdles/roadblocks that are delaying its final approval.

The Keystone XL Pipeline would allow Canada to export an additional 1.1 million barrels a day of oil to the United States. The United States currently imports 1.9 million barrels a day from Canada.

While Canadian oil represents a plentiful source of fossil fuel from a friendly neighbor, it poses environmental dilemmas: much of Canada’s oil is extracted from oil sands in a process that releases higher levels of heat-trapping gases than conventional oil drilling in the United States. In addition, extracting oil from oil sands — also called tar sand — damages the local environment by creating toxic sludge ponds and destroying large areas of boreal forest.  (NY Times)

The problems with the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline concern the risks of running a nearly 2,000 mile pipeline across six states, as well as with America's growing reliance on the world's dirtiest oil (upwards of 3 million barrels per day in a few year's time).

There are many concerns with increasing America's reliance on Canadian oil sands.

Groups are worried about a host of environmental consequences, from increased reliance on a carbon intensive fuel to destruction of the Boreal forest in Canada.

Oil sands are a mixture of sand, clay and bitumen, a tar-like gooey substance that is converted to a synthetic crude oil before it’s transported by pipeline. Its extraction from beneath the forest can involve mining, extensive water and energy use, and the production of tailings ponds filled with toxic chemicals.

Environmentalists are also concerned about a high-pressure pipeline crossing through miles of environmentally sensitive areas of the U.S., including the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. Ogallala, which supplies water to about two million people and is critical to Midwestern agriculture, has some sections so close to the surface that any pipeline leak would almost immediately contaminate a large portion of the water, the National Wildlife Federation says in a recent report called Staying Hooked on a Dirty Fuel: Why Canadian Tar Sands are a Bad Bet for the United States.  (Solve Climate)

With little discussion given to the two previously approved oil sands pipelines, the BP oil gusher in the Gulf has raised awareness of the risks associated with oil extraction and distribution.  In addition, Chevron's one-in-a-million event earlier this month where a ruptured pipeline spewed 33,000 gallons of crude oil into a Utah creek leaves many people skeptical of the no-risk claims given by the oil industry.

The EPA has initiated a further study of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to assess the overall impact.

The environmental impact of crude production from Canada's oil sands should be studied more closely before the U.S. approves a new pipeline from its northern neighbor, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said this week.

The State Department is reviewing TransCanada's plans to expand a pipeline that would roughly double the amount of oil-sands crude shipped from Canada to the U.S. A decision on whether to approve the project could come within weeks. The EPA's letter, however, comes amid growing opposition to the pipeline from U.S. lawmakers concerned about the climate impact of emissions.

In a letter released this week, the EPA's enforcement division recommended that the State Department conduct a more comprehensive review of several environmental impacts before approving the $7 billion Keystone XL expansion project, which would bring oil-sands crude to refineries on the Gulf Coast. In particular, the agency suggested greater scrutiny of the project's impact on greenhouse-gas emissions, air pollution, pipeline safety, wetlands, and migratory-bird populations.  ( NASDAQ)

With the Obama Administration moving toward regulating carbon emissions, some lawmakers in Washington are questioning whether increasing America's reliance on the most carbon intensive oil in the world is a smart idea.

This pipeline is a multibillion-dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman said.

Despite a pledge to lower greenhouse gas emissions, the administration has not yet taken steps to crack down on oil sands imports, a stable fuel source from a friendly neighbor.

Last year, the administration approved a similar pipeline project transporting oil sands by Enbridge Inc.

The proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline would greatly increase U.S. imports of oil sands crude, raising the carbon intensity of the nation's transportation fuels, Waxman said.  ( Reuters)

Some could easily make the case that a weak energy/climate bill passed by Congress, coupled with a major expansion of America's reliance on Canadian oil sands, would only cause our country's emissions to worsen over the coming decades.  By failing to meet the 17% reductions in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2020 as was promised in Copenhagen, America is setting a future global climate treaty up for failure and leaving successive generations on this planet with a collapsing ecosystem.

More stories by 72JAG at examiner.com/nationalenergyexaminer