keystone pipeline route
-
Will Environmentalists Kill the Keystone XL Pipeline?
For more than four years, the controversial Keystone XL pipeline has been at the center of a heated battle between opponents and supporters.
Those who favor the 1,700-mile extension of the pipeline see it as a step toward North American energy independence and a source of tens of thousands of jobs.
But opponents say the Canadian-U.S pipeline would contribute to global warming and causeirreparable harm to the environment.
On Wednesday, about 50 opponents protested against the Keystone pipeline outside the White House, chanting, "Hey, Obama, we don't want no climate change drama."
The protesters, many of whom were arrested, included actress Daryl Hannah, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, renowned climate scientist James E. Hansen and civil rights veteran Julian Bonds.
Underscoring the intensity of environmentalists' opposition to the pipeline, the protest marked the first time the venerable, 120-year-old Sierra Club's board had approved an act of civil disobedience.
"It's awful hard to reconcile wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the dirtiest oil project in the country," Brune said. "The president gets this, he understands this challenge, and we're here to ensure his ambitions rise to the level of the challenge." -
Will John Kerry Kill the Keystone XL Pipeline?
When new U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met Friday with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird in Washington, the talk turned to the fate of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
Kerry said the controversial $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline project would undergo a "fair and transparent review," adding he expects to make a decision "near-term" on whether to move forward with it. The State Department has final say over the pipeline because it traverses international borders.
According to a department spokeswoman, a decision is likely at the end of March. But Reuters reported an unidentified U.S. official said the decision could be pushed back until June.
Canada is committed to the pipeline, and Baird lobbied hard for it during the meeting with Kerry. After the meeting, Baird called the Keystone XL pipeline a "huge priority."
-
The Ultimate Fate of the Keystone Pipeline
The Obama Administration last week decided not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
This has introduced another political firestorm into an already uncertain market.
If there is one subject that is likely to stimulate more angst over economic recovery prospects, it is the availability of energy.
Energy is central in everything that happens in the U.S. market.
And Keystone is designed to transport up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast. It represents a new North American-centered initiative to lessen reliance on Middle Eastern imports and would create thousands of new jobs.
It also would create new opportunities for investors.
But the pipeline has had its detractors from the beginning.
Environmentalist Concerns Reign
Environmental concerns have been raised over the greenhouse gas emissions and passage of the pipeline through ecologically sensitive areas.
It is also opposed by those who view the current condition of virtually guaranteed crude oil price increases as an opportunity to invest in alternative and renewable energy technologies.
Some of the environmental issues can be resolved by simply moving the pipeline route.
But others are more difficult to counter.
The crude involved is very heavy oil, primarily from the Athabasca oil sands and similar deposits in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That raw material requires upgrading to synthetic oil and that is far more environmentally invasive than processing lightweight crude.
Therefore, proponents of the pipeline can't resolve environmental concerns simply by changing the route.
And then there is the added problem of a current U.S. statute, namely, 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. This prohibits federal agencies from procuring (which includes importing) synthetic fuel unless its life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than those for conventional petroleum sources.
The "life-cycle" considers the GHG emissions throughout the extraction and processing of the oil - that is, from the time it is taken out of the ground, through its transport and upgrading, to its delivery to a refinery (and its emissions there).
When originally passed, this section was designed to benefit domestic American producers over the import of heavier and higher sulfur content foreign oil. It was never intended to create a problem with our neighbors to the north.
Unfortunately, we sure have a problem now.
To continue reading, please click here...
