Author Archive

Avoiding the Issue?

Because of the weight of the tar sands-pipeline issue, President Obama’s decision would significantly impact his chance for re-election and the alignment of the vote. That said, Obama sent the issue back to Congress, and decided to delay the vote on and official review of the pipeline until after the 2012 election. The new review is required to include a climate impact statement. (This is at the same time as there has been a move to re-route the pipeline.) Some say that this effectively kills the pipeline, while environmentalist Glenn Hurowitz says it is just a delay to catastrophe.

TransCanada’s Business

TransCanada claims that it will take full responsibility for the contamination of water if there is a spill from the pipeline. This said, they claim they will supply “an alternative water supply.” I bring up this point because it is a grand claim to make for a company who, in truth, has made pipelines primarily for natural gas. Looking at TransCanada’s Annual Report (from FEBRUARY 2011), the Keystone Pipeline is the only oil pipeline in use. The company lists prospects for three other pipelines on its website, none of which have been completed but have recieved “firm commitments.” Needless to say, the company is inexperienced in this field.

Is the damage already done?

 

This is the map of all of the pipelines throughout the United States as of 2006. It makes me wonder, how much more damage will the Keystone XL pipeline actually do? It seems as though there are already pipelines going through environmentally sensitive areas. In fact, it almost looks like there are pipelines along the same route as that proposed for the extension.  Surprising, isn’t it?

This raises the question of WHY people protest the pipeline. Here are some possible reasons: we must disregard when these pipelines were built, and focus on the time we are in- do we want to support the mining of tar sands? Do we want to put the environment and people at greater risk [than they already are]? Are we against the pipeline in principle or for other reasons?

How is Oil like McDonalds?

 

We know it’s bad for us…. and yet…

TransCanada and Hillary Clinton have both accepted one thing: oil is not going anywhere, and alternative forms of energy are not coming soon. So do we take the oil, or do we let it be shipped elsewhere? This is a question on whether we want the responsibility for producing more greenhouse gases than before, because this unconventional oil not takes more to produce, but burns dirtier than petroleum, or we want to prolong our dependence on oil, and keep our lives the way we know them (however destructive they may be).

 

Assigning Value to the Tar Sands

The EU Fuel Quality Committee has proposed, but is now reconsidering, the value it attributes to the emissions from tar sands oil. This value is not monetary value, it is the amount (in grams) of CO2 per megajoule of fuel or energy.

They previously assigned it a value of 107 gCO2eq/MJ. The average value of crude oil is 87.5 gCO2eq/MJ.

Two sides of the argument:

For the greater value of environmental impact:

“.. a Stanford University report by Adam R. Brandt in January 2011 found greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands production as ‘significantly different enough from conventional oil emissions that regulatory frameworks should address this discrepancy with pathway-specific emissions factors that distinguish between oil sands and conventional oil processes.’”

 

Against the greater value of environmental impact:

“…Canada maintains that its oil sands are being unfairly singled out for discriminatory treatment compared to crude oil.

In a letter sent last week to EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said: ‘If unjustified, discriminatory measures to implement the FQD (Fuel Quality Directive) are put in place, Canada will not hesitate to defend its interests.’”

 

This article can be found at:

http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/britain-accused-stalling-eu-tar-sands-regulation-news-508576

 

Looking From the Outside In

Environmentalists in Britain say we don’t need the oil that we are on the cusp of mining. Statistics have shown that today 82% percent of the population lives in urban areas, where cars are not needed as much, and car sales since 1994 have only decreased. Civilians in cities turn to public transportation as well as bicycle systems to get around. New York City has an extensive train and subway system, and Washinton D.C. is one city to have set up the renter system for bicycles.

In addition, despite the 8.4% rise in drivers, California’s oil consumption has decreased 3.5% from the level at the first half of 2002. Coupled with the rise of alternative forms of energy and more fuel efficient, hybrid, or electric cars, the steady decline in gasoline use suggests that the tar sands oil may not be as necessary as we see it to be.

HOWEVER, nowhere in the article did I see mentioned the costs of heating and cooling systems, which are mainly fueled by oil. As the seasons are relatively constant, the demand for fuel in this sense will not change. Other places the demand will most likely  remain the same are the industrial agriculture business, airlines, etc. These are probably the greatest users of fuel today, and, unless they change routes, the tar sand fuel may well be necessary.

SKEWED INFORMATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Pipeline Review Is Faced With Question of Conflict

 

John Grap/The Enquirer, via Associated Press

Crews in Michigan last month worked to clean up a July 2010 spill from a pipeline similar to the one that has been proposed.

By  and 

Published: October 7, 2011

The State Department assigned an important environmental impact study of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to a company with financial ties to the pipeline operator, flouting the intent of a federal law meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects.

Multimedia

Russ Girling, TransCanada’s chief executive, in Washington on Friday. The pipeline would run from northern Alberta to Texas.

The department allowedTransCanada, the company seeking permission to build the 1,700-mile pipeline from the oil sands of northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast in Texas, to solicit and screen bids for the environmental study. At TransCanada’s recommendation, the department hired Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston, even though it had previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a “major client” in its marketing materials.

While it is common for federal agencies to farm out environmental impact studies, legal experts said they were surprised the State Department was not more circumspect about the potential for real and perceived conflicts of interest on such a large and controversial project.

John D. Echeverria, an expert on environmental law, referred to the process as “outsourcing government responsibility.”

The subsequent study, released at the end of August, found that the massive pipeline would have “limited adverse environmental impacts” if operated according to regulations. That positive assessment removed one of the last hurdles for approval of the proposed pipeline.

Cardno Entrix also played a substantial role in organizing the public hearings on the project for the State Department, the last of which was held Friday in Washington. The proposal is open for public commentuntil midnight Sunday, and the department’s Web sitedirects comment to a Cardno Entrix e-mail address.

Environmental groups, as well as some citizens and public officials along the route, have opposed the project, citing the relatively high emissions created by extracting crude from oil sands and the spill threat posed to important aquifers by a pipeline filled with a potentially corrosive crude, among other concerns. The E.P.A. has criticized two prior draft environmental impact statements prepared by Cardno Entrix on Keystone XL as “inadequate” and providing “insufficient information,” but has not yet rendered an appraisal of the final study. The E.P.A.’s role is purely advisory.

Advocates for the project say that Keystone XL, which would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day, would create thousands of jobs and help ensure a stable fuel supply from a friendly neighbor.

The State Department is the agency that approves transboundary pipelines by determining whether they are in the national interest. Its decision is expected by the end of the year.

The National Environmental Policy Act, which took effect in 1970, allows for agencies to hire outside contractors to perform its required environmental impact studies, but advises that contractors be chosen “solely by the lead agency” and should “execute a disclosure statement” specifying that they “have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project.”

And yet legal experts said it had become common for companies applying to build government projects to be involved in assigning and paying for the impact analysis. Some say such arrangements are nearly inevitable because federal agencies typically lack the in-house resources or money to conduct these complex studies. “What’s normal is deplorable, and it’s NEPA’s dirty little secret,” said Mr. Echeverria, acting director of the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School, referring to the law. He said federal agencies are supposed to review the findings, but often lack the expertise to do so.

Oliver A. Houck, a law professor at Tulane University and an expert on NEPA, said Cardno Entrix should never have been selected to perform the environmental study on Keystone XL because of its relationship with TransCanada and the potential to garner more work involving the pipeline. The company provides a wide ranges of services, including assisting in oil spill response.

Cardno Entrix had a “financial interest in the outcome of the project,” Mr. Houck said, adding, “Their primary loyalty is getting this project through, in the way the client wants.”

Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, in an interview, said the State Department followed all federal regulations and had closely managed and supervised the company’s work, adding, “We have final say.”

She said that TransCanada had managed the bidding process and recommended three candidates with Cardno Entrix topping the list. The department vetted Cardno Entrix by consulting with other agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. TransCanada pays the consultant directly, but would not reveal the amount.

Ms. Jones said that Cardno Entrix provided a solid and impartial study, which became more robust through the draft process, with advice from agencies like the E.P.A. “I think it required a lot a lot of work to get it where it is now,” she said. “We have done an objective environmental impact statement.”

The State Department has also faced charges of political conflict of interestover its handling of the Keystone XL application because TransCanada’s chief Washington lobbyist, Paul Elliott, was a top official in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Cardno Entrix officials referred all questions about its participation to the State Department. Cardno Entrix did submit a disclosure statement acknowledging that it was paid $2.9 million to handle the environmental review of an earlier pipeline in the Keystone network. It did not mention another project it had done for TransCanada, consulting on a natural gas pipeline that runs through Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota.

A spokesman for TransCanada, Terry Cunha, said that his company had recommended contractors to the State Department based on “technical ability, experience, and appropriate personnel.” But he said the final contract for the environmental assessment “provides that Department of State directs Entrix. As a result, we don’t have a direct relationship with Entrix.” The American company, Entrix, merged with the Australian company Cardno Limited in 2010.

Environmental groups say the study underplays both the emissions impact of the new pipeline and the danger posed by a spill of crude from oil sands, called diluted bitumen, a hard-to-remediate mixture. An accident at a pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy in July 2010 dumped 843,000 gallons of such oil near Marshall, Mich.

A 35-mile stretch of the Kalamazoo River remains closed and cleanup has proved extremely difficult, running over budget and past deadlines set by the E.P.A. Estimates of cleanup costs have run well over $500 million. The E.P.A.’s regional administrator said her office had never seen a river system affected by so much submerged oil.

But the impact report for the Keystone XL project says that “response to a spill from the proposed pipeline would not require unique clean up procedures.”

The Enbridge spill is only mentioned briefly in addendums. And Cardno Entrix would have been aware of the challenges in Michigan: it was hired by Enbridge to assess the damage to natural resources caused by the spill.

Steven Da Silva, a retired science teacher who attended public hearings in Austin and Port Arthur, Tex., last week to oppose the pipeline, said he was surprised to see officials wearing Cardno Entrix nametags and was not sure whether State Department employees were present.

The department said its personnel moderated all hearings.

Legal experts said it is not unusual for subcontractors to conduct hearings and prepare responses to complaints. But they also said the State Department should closely monitor the work to make sure that any concerns raised are taken seriously. James W. Spensley, a Colorado-based environmental lawyer with broad experience in government pointed out that the courts provided an import check on abuse, since shoddy or biased studies are vulnerable to legal challenges.

“Generally,” he said, “lead agencies are very cautious about finding someone who is going to give them good, reliable, information because they are the ones that are going to get sued.”

 

 

Robert Redford Protests the Keystone XL Pipeline

Say No to the Keystone XL Pipeline

PROTECT THE BOREAL FORESTS!

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


I highly recommend reading this PDF. If you don’t read it, at least look at the picture! They are enough to make you re-consider whether we should even allow the mining of tar sands to continue!

Here’s a sample:

 

The Question of Posterity

Aside from the obvious issues that arise from exploiting the tar sands in Canada, there are some of greater ethical weight. These are those of the safety, security, and well-being of generations to come.

How will drilling the oil and building the pipeline affect the safety of future generations directly and indirectly?

How will it affect the availability of resources for generations to come?

The answer to the first question pertains to the environmental effects of mining the tar sands for bitumen, and the physical and chemical properties of it as it is being transported. Firstly, the mining and refinement of the tar sands have long lasting environmental effects. Secondly, the use of these oils reduces their availability to future generations. In the questions of equality and well-being, should we have the right to decrease the availability of resources to our children’s children? We inherently effect their well being in this sense and in the sense that the air they breathe will be dirtier, the water they drink would be at risk for being contaminated, and the biodiversity of life on the planet will have decreased. There is no saying what species may take over the forests or oceans, and whether we can coexist successfully in an environment were animals and humans alike compete for the same fresh water, food, and open, usable space.