Please don't flame me. I want to understand this Keystone XL thing.

[LuckyTheDog]

I have not been following the Keystone XL story closely. Please let me know:

-- Would the pipeline cause the U.S. to consume more oil than it otherwise might? Or, would the oil from Canada offset the amount imported from other places?
-- Is tar sands oil "dirtier" than other kinds of oil?
-- Are some of the environmental concerns about the pipeline related to the possibility of an accident along the route? If so, is that because similar pipelines have been shown to be disaster-prone?
-- Is transporting oil via a long pipeline considered to be more or less safe than (or the same level of safety as) transporting it via super-tanker?
-- Is there some aspect of this that my questions are not capturing and, if so, could you explain it briefly?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Some answers:

The pipeline would not cause us to use more oil. I don't believe it would offset the amount being imported either.

BUT. The oil is VERY DIRTY, really sludgy. There's a lot of crud in it. The environmental concerns do relate to the very Distinct possibility of an accident, a huge, very dirty accident. That's a given.

Pipelines are, by their very nature, accident-prone. They are devilishly hard to clean up. The oil soaks into the dirt and floats into the water, and it's a friggin' mess.

Super tankers would not really be practical. They would have to go through the Great Lakes and then down the east coast, into the Gulf of Mexico to get to Texas.

I hope this helps.

[cwydro]

2. Read this articele and it may open your eyes.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-keystone-pipeline-revolt-why-mass-arrests-are-just-the

[gateley]

7. Thanks for this link. nt

[ellenfl]

9. bad link? eom

[cwydro]

11. Rolling Stone article

...a great one...it worked for me.

Just google it if it doesn't work.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I sincerely hope nobody flames you. Very few people really understand our energy infrastructure.

Most, for example, don't know that there are more miles of underwater pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico than all the miles of all the Interstate system in all 50 states.

Or how a refinery works.

Or where spend nuclear fuel is stored.

So, like so many issues, the best thing to do is to try to find answers.

K/R yours!

:patriot:

[ellenfl]

4. imo, most importantly, the oil will be sold on the open market.

we bear the environmental cost of an accident but reap no benefit from the pipeline crossing the country.

ellen fl

[JerseygirlCT]

10. That's the problem with oil, period

You nailed the crooked economics of the thing succinctly.

[truedelphi]

13. And the fact that the route the pipeline is planned to take ends up at the Gulf of Mexico

shows us that the product is going to be put on super tankers and sent elsewhere. Our cars cannot use it - the stuff would not make the grade in terms of all the clean air regulations that affect gasoline inside our nation's borders.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

15. This shit has been in your car for forty years

If the goal is to bypass the US market the route is wasting billions, as are the US producers building rather expensive bitumen upgraders.

[gateley]

5. I'm not an expert but here's what my sense of it is:

1. I don't THINK so. I understand it, the oil would be shipped overseas anyway, so the US (or even Canada?) would not be the endusers. Not positive on this, though.

2. Yes: Refining tar sands oil is dirtier than refining conventional oil, and results in higher emissions of toxic sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. These emissions cause smog and acid rain and contribute to respiratory diseases like asthma. / snip / Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil. During tar sands oil production alone, levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes. /snip

3. Yes: TransCanada already attempted to cut corners by seeking a safety waiver to build the pipeline with thinner-than-normal steel and to pump oil at higher-than-normal pressures. / snip / Heightening concerns, TransCanada's Keystone I pipeline has spilled a dozen times in less than a year of operation, prompting a corrective action order from the Department of Transportation. Experts warn that the more acidic and corrosive consistency of the type of tar sands oil being piped into the U.S. makes spills more likely, and have joined the EPA in calling on the State Department to conduct a thorough study of these risks.

4. Not sure, but it would think the answer would be "yes".

5. I'll let the DUers who truly understand respond to this (as well as enlighten both of us on the other questions).

I got ALL these responses from: http://www.foe.org/keystone-xl-pipeline

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. It's the dirtiest form of oil and here's a fact sheet:

http://www.calproject.org/factsheet-ibcc-tarsands.pdf

[enough]

8. A few answers, covering the main issues. Links are live at the original page.

In my opinion, the last point is the most important:
Extraction and refinement of oil sands are more GHG-intensive compared to conventional oil.

Do follow the links on the original page.



http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

Key Facts on Keystone XL

Energy Security: Tar Sand will not Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil

Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.

Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin America. Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.
Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security. U.S. demand for oil has been declining since 2007. New fuel-efficiency standards mean that this trend will continue once the economy gets back on track. In fact, the Energy Deptartment report on KeystoneXL found that decreasing demand through fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports with or without the pipeline.

More info:

“Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed”, Oil Change International

Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers

By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II , are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”
Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.

More information:

“Tar Sands Oil Means High Gas Prices” Corporate Ethics International
“Pipeline Profiteering” National Wildlife Federation

Jobs: TransCanada’s jobs projections are vastly inflated.

In 2008, TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department indicated “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline.
Jobs estimates above those listed in its application draw from a 2011 report commissioned by TransCanada that estimates 20,000 “person-years” of employment based on a non-public forecast model using undisclosed inputs provided by TransCanada.
According to TransCanada’s own data, just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor.
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) both oppose the pipeline. Their August 2011 statement: “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.”

More Information:

“Transcanada’s Exaggerated Jobs Claims for KeystoneXL” National Wildlife Federation

Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.

The U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration has not yet conducted an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline, despite unique safety concerns posed by its more corrosive properties.
TransCanada predicted that the Keystone I pipeline would see one spill in 7 years. In fact, there have been 12 spills in 1 year. The company was ordered to dig up 10 sections of pipe after government-ordered tests indicated that defective steel may have been used. KeystoneXL will use steel from the same Indian manufacturer.
Keystone XL will cross through America’s agricultural heartland, the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers, the Ogallala aquifer, sage grouse habitat, walleye fisheries and more.
The agency was not adequately accounting for threats to wildlife, increased pollution in distressed communities where the crude may be refined, or increases in carbon emissions that would exacerbate climate change, and a variety of other issues.

More Information

“Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks”, National Wildlife Federation, NRDC, Others.
“On Shore Oil Disasters”, National Wildlife Federation
“Analysis of Frequency, Magnitude and Consequence of Worst-Case Spills From the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline” John Stansbury, Ph.D., P.E.
“Pipeline “Safety Conditions” are Smoke and Mirrors”, NRDC

Climate Change: Keystone XL is the fuse to North America’s biggest carbon bomb.

In a study funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a group of retired four-star generals and admirals concluded that climate change, if not addressed, will be the greatest threat to national security.
The State Department Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the pipeline. Extraction and refinement of oil sands are more GHG-intensive compared to conventional oil. The EIS estimates that the additional annual GHG emissions from the proposed pipeline could range from an additional “12-23 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent… (roughly the equivalent of annual emissions from 2 to 4 coal-fired power plants)” over conventional crude oil from the Middle East. <8> The EPA believes that the methodology used by the State Department is inaccurate and could underestimate GHG emissions by as much as 20 percent.<9> Given that the expected lifetime of the Keystone XL pipeline is fifty years, the EPA notes that the project could yield an extra 1.15 billion tons of GHGs using the quantitative estimates in the EIS.<10>

Post to Twitter

[TheWraith]

12. Answers for you.

"-- Would the pipeline cause the U.S. to consume more oil than it otherwise might? Or, would the oil from Canada offset the amount imported from other places?"

No, and yes, respectively. Any amount of this used in the US would be oil we didn't get from somewhere else.

"-- Is tar sands oil "dirtier" than other kinds of oil?"

Yes. It produces considerably more CO2 than subsurface crude oil, due to the chemistry, and the extraction process. That's the main problem.

"-- Are some of the environmental concerns about the pipeline related to the possibility of an accident along the route? If so, is that because similar pipelines have been shown to be disaster-prone?"

Yes, those concerns are there, however that's not really a huge concern; most pipeline leaks tend to be small. (Under 100 gallons.)

"-- Is transporting oil via a long pipeline considered to be more or less safe than (or the same level of safety as) transporting it via super-tanker?"

Six of one, half dozen of the other. A pipeline has a lot of wear and is far more likely to have a leak, but if something DOES happen the odds of a large catastrophic event are greater with a tanker.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. Not sure why this has only become an issue now,

Canada has been exporting synthetic crude derived from the tar sands to the US for forty years and at the present time anywhere from 800,000 to 1,100,000 million barrels a day.

Where were the poutragers for the Enbridge Southern Lights or Alberta Clipper Pipelines?

[Harmony Blue]

18. Major aquifer is the problem

Yes there are pipe lines in the Gulf of Mexico, but when fresh water supplies are threatened that is a problem.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

20. Is the Red Lake River Watershed not worthy of equal concern?

Why is it the Alberta Clipper passed regulatory muster with little more than an unnoticed lawsuit by some Indians, which like Keystone XL will deliver the "dirty oil" to the US market and this project has people circling the whitehouse.

All I see here is either poutragers setting the state to attack Obama or some unseen actor astroturfing TCPL for reasons unknown.

[EC]

16. I didn't see it mentioned here

but I think it's kinda of a big deal that it goes through a major aquifer too.

[AngkorWot]

17. 1. No.

2. Yes. However, that's got nothing to do with the pipeline. The tar sands will be refined whether the pipeline is built in the US or not.
3. Most of the environmental complaints about about the tar sands itself
4. Pipelines are safter than shipping

[Harmony Blue]

19. I will give it a shot

1. Probably not.

2. Yes, because of its makeup it is dirtier, or has high viscosity unlike oil found in the Gulf.

3. Yes. Geological seismic activity can happen away from plate boundaries and fresh water supplies are threatened with a spill. If Oil is 1a in in terms of an important commodity, fresh water is 1b.

4. I do not know honestly.

Pipelines, like oil rigs in the gulf are long term investments, and often the return will come in 25 years time. Meanwhile, similar investment in solar and wind can yield results far more earlier, and offers flexibility with infrastructure.

[ellenfl]

21. imo, water is 1a and oil is 1b . . . we can live without oil but not without water. eom