Translation from English

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Sci American- Why Keystone XL is Dead

Why Keystone XL Is Dead

Once seeking a fast approval, TransCanada wants to pause the pipeline’s review 
stop-keystone-xl-nebraska


PIPELINE PROBLEMS: The Keystone XL pipeline has faced challenges based on its proposed route through Nebraska.

© David Biello

More on this Topic

Tough times have come to Alberta's tar sands. The oil-rich region enjoyed a long boom in the early 21st century. A truck driver could make $100,000 per year hauling bitumen-rich sand. Man camps sprang up in the boreal forest to house workers from as far away as Venezuela and Angola. Strips of cleared land crisscrossed the seemingly endless woods so that geologists could precisely tell where to mine for oil sands or flood the depths with steam to melt the bitumen in place. Clouds of steam and pyramids of sulfur rose at the vast industrial machines to turn bitumen into oil.
But with oil hovering around $50 per barrel, companies working the oil sands could barely make existing projects worthwhile, let alone start new ones. For example, oil giant Shell not only withdrew from its Arctic oil ambitions but also shelved plans for more oil sands action at Pierre River and Carmon Creek, eating billions of dollars in investment.
What did Shell blame for its retrenchment? The lack of infrastructure to move oil from the tar sands into the global oil market.
That problem just got worse. The builder of the 830,000 barrel-per-day Keystone XL pipeline—enough alone to increase oil sands production by more than 40 percent—wants a time out. TransCanada has asked the U.S. State Department to pause its review (pdf) of the pipeline that crosses an international border for roughly a year while the state of Nebraska deliberates about changes in the proposed route, also, perhaps, amid concerns that the Obama administration might reject the pipeline outright.
In fact, with hindsight, if TransCanada had simply followed this new route from the beginning in September of 2008, the $8 billion, nearly 2,000 kilometer-long pipeline would likely be up and running today. The new route follows existing easements rather than cutting a new swath through private properties and seizing land. Instead of a quiet approval, there have been seven years of delay, legal wrangling and, most importantly, activism.
A quiet approval is no longer possible. Activists have helped to hamper the expansion of pipelines like KXL, while also organizing against the railcars, tanker trucks and other conveyances that transport the oil instead. Canada's attention has turned to other pipeline projects to transport oil from the tar sands either west to British Columbia, a project known as Northern Gateway, or east to the existing infrastructure in Ontario and Quebec, dubbed Energy East. Both do not cross any international borders.
TransCanada could also want to hold out for a more friendly U.S. administration, one easier on the industrial infrastructure that supports the fossil fuel economy and more favorable toward Canada's tar sands. The company could also be hoping for more expensive oil to revive the good times in Alberta's tar patch. But the momentum of this fossil fuel juggernaut is hard to stop and oil production from the tar sands will continue to increase even as the companies producing it may end up suffering a loss on that low-price oil. The excess oil will help keep global prices low.
Still, Keystone XL is not dead, merely sleeping. While the pipeline proposal slumbers, circumstances will continue to change, however. Already, Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic candidate for president, has explicitly rejected the pipeline. While Republican contenders Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have indicated they would approve the pipeline as soon as possible. And it's possible the current occupant of the White House could reject the pipeline before leaving in 2017.
Regardless of what happens at the national level, Nebraska and the issue of state's rights still mean the pipeline might not go through. After all, even if the federal government approves the border-crossing that does not obligate the Cornhusker State to approve the pipeline's path through its territory. And if the world decides to get serious about climate change, tar sands—among the world’s most polluting forms of oil—may not find favor anywhere.
 Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:

Comments

Naomi9093November 4, 2015, 1:19 PM
Why must we wait till gasoline is $10 a gallon, or our heating bills are $500, before we get serious about energy. Now is not the time to rest on our laurels till the next crisis creeps up on us. For Christ sake, build the pipeline. It is the best solution to moving and the safest. Moving it by train or truck is very hazardous.
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
Greg90210November 4, 2015, 2:19 PM
I own land in Nebraska and received a letter from TransCanada many years ago. It stated that they were building a pipeline across my land and would take it via emanate domain if necessary. Can you imagine a foreign company or country sending you a letter telling you they were taking your property in the United States and you couldn't do anything about it. Sorry Naomi9093. Not in my United States or Nebraska!!!! Do I need to say it again. The reaction in Nebraska was actually closer to this "Over our dead bodies you will". And trust me the response was genuine.
This is really what ignited the entire Keystone debate. It wasn't about energy, economics or the environment. It was about a foreign entity going into Nebraska and telling the people how they were going to use their land. Not the best strategy to take in an agricultural plains state like Nebraska. Those folks don't react well to being told what you are going to do with THEIR property. That's thousand of people and hundreds of thousands of acres of land. The whole energy, economics, environment thing is just politics based on your social economic view of the world. Argue it all you want. 
Plus, here's the real kicker. Who moves that stuff without a pipeline. Trains, say like Union Pacific trains. Like, headquartered in Omaha Nebraska Union Pacific trains. ha ha ha ha ha TransCanada, I love you guys. Nebraskan's and Nebraska makes more money without you. 
Oh and by the way. Build your pipeline somewhere else. Because the other thing about these simple plains folks. They don't get over being disrespected easily. You may call us backwards, simple, dumb, whatever. We could care less. Just make sure your not trespassing when you do it. :)
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
Anchovy_RancherNovember 4, 2015, 3:27 PM
My Father was born in Lincoln, Nebraska. From that point of view, I consider the seizure of Private Property in that state, to be tantamount to "Legalized Thievery." Be it a Canadian Corporation or the United States Government committing the crime against property and/or forced easements. Not to even scratch the surface of appropriation of sacred, Native Lands or the depletion of the Oglala Aquifer for shale oil production... To paraphrase the quote of the late, great, Professional Baseball Player, Yogi Berra: "It's like Wounded Knee all over again." Earthquakes in Oklahoma strike a chord with anybody?
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
fdolezaNovember 4, 2015, 4:24 PM
If the Canadian crude doesn't move, the Venezuelan faja blends will fill that extra heavy market demand. This means oil will be shipped to the USA gulf coast by tankers, instead of pipelines. The crudes are nearly identical.
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
RoadkiltNovember 4, 2015, 9:44 PM
Oil sands aren't pretty, but at least they are in North America where the whole continent shares in the jobs and revenues. Lots of Americans and American companies are already drilling the wells, building the plants and pumping their crude through TransCanada. Visit Calgary, 10% of its population is American. Its not really a us/them situation. Its all of us. Also, I trust Canada to defend and regulate its environment laws a lot more than Venezuela, Mexico, Trinidad and other suppliers of the heavy crude the US refineries are built for. The US builds several times the amount of pipeline the KXl would have, every year. Rail is a bad option as seen by several recent horrific disasters. Yeah, they offended Nebraskans, and shot themselves in the foot over routing, but realistically this source of oil will be around for a hundred years and nothing beats having a variety of energy choices to fuel literal powerhouse economies.
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered