Keystone XL: Affairs of State

"Bill McKibben, the firebrand leader of the crusade to kill the Keystone XL oil pipeline, is losing the battle for hearts and minds. Perhaps that’s why he sounds so depressed. One of the most environmentally friendly presidents is in the White House, and he still might not kill it off. 'Go past a certain point,' warned Mr. McKibben in The Guardian, 'and we may no longer be able to affect the outcome in ways that will prevent long-term global catastrophe. We’re clearly nearing that limit.' Mr. McKibben knows as well as anyone that Keystone is merely a symbol in a larger battle. Whether or not it’s built will make no difference to the climate. One way or another, the oil will flow. The volume of crude oil transported from Canada by rail has been exploding – a net loss for the environment, by the way, because rail transport is far less safe than pipelines. The McKibbenists face defeat at every turn. The Democrats are deeply split on Keystone, as they are on the desirability of hydrofracking. The Environmental Protection Agency has postponed new laws on carbon dioxide emissions. Worst of all is the growing number of people in the environmental movement itself who flatly disagree on tactics, strategy and goals."

"As the bureaucratic permitting process grinds on, the latest environmental impact statement confirms there’s no substantial environmental or safety reason to stop the Keystone XL pipeline."

Keystone XL pipeline construction was given the go-ahead Tuesday by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman.

"BILLINGS, Mont. — Energy companies behind the oil boom on the Northern Plains are increasingly turning to an industrial-age workhorse — the locomotive — to move their crude to refineries across the U.S., as plans for new pipelines stall and existing lines can’t keep up with demand. Delivering oil thousands of miles by rail from the heartland to refineries on the East, West and Gulf coasts costs more, but it can mean increased profits — up to $10 or more a barrel — because of higher oil prices on the coasts. That works out to about $700,000 per train. The parade of mile-long trains carrying hazardous material out of North Dakota and Montana and across the country has experts and federal regulators concerned. Rail transport is less safe than pipelines, they say, and the proliferation of oil trains raises the risk of a major derailment and spill. Since 2009, the number of train cars carrying crude hauled by major railroads has jumped from about 10,000 a year to a projected 200,000 in 2012. Much of that has been in the Northern Plains’ Bakken crude patch, but companies say oil trains are rolling or will be soon from Texas, Colorado and western Canada."

“As recognized by the DSEIS [State Department's draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement], oil sands crude is significantly more GHG [greenhouse gas] intensive than other crudes, and therefore has potentially large climate impacts. The DSEIS reports that lifecycle GHG emissions from oil sands crude could be 81% greater than emissions from the average crude refined in the U.S. in 2005 on a well-to-tank basis, and 17% greater on a well-to-wheels basis. 1 This difference may be even greater depending on the assumptions made? The incremental emissions from oil sands crude transported by the Project would therefore be 18.7 million metric tons C02-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) per year when compared to an equal amount of U.S. average crudes, based on the Project's full capacity of 830,000 barrels of oil sands crude per day.3”

 

“Although the DSEIS describes the GHG intensity of oil sands crude, the DSEIS nevertheless concludes that regardless of whether the Project permit is approved, projected oil sands production will remain substantially unchanged. This conclusion is based on an analysis of crude oil markets and projections of oil sands crude development, including the potential for other means of transport to bring oil sands crude to market.”

 

“We have learned from the 2010 Enbridge spill of oil sands crude in Michigan that spills of diluted bitumen (dilbit)4 may require different response actions or equipment from response actions for conventional oil spills. These spills can also have different impacts than spills of conventional oil. We recommend that these differences be more fully addressed in the Final EIS, especially as they relate to the fate and transport of the oil and the remediation that will be required. …. In that [Enbridge] spill, oil sands crude sank to the bottom of the Kalamazoo River, mixing with the river bottom's sediment and organic matter, making the oil difficult to find and recover. After almost three years of recovery efforts, EPA recently determined that dredging of bottom sediments will be required to protect public health and welfare and the environment. This determination was based in large part on demonstrations that the oil sands crude associated with the Enbridge spill will not appreciably biodegrade.5”

 

“In addition to prevention measures, we agree with the DSEIS' s suggestion that additional mitigation measures regarding preparedness to reduce the impacts of a spill may be appropriate (DSEIS, p. 4.13-79). For example, we recommend including the following measures as permit conditions:

 

* Requiring that the emergency response plan, as well as contingency plans address submerged oil, as well as floating oil, including in a cold weather response;

* Requiring pre-positioned response assets, including equipment that can address submerged oil;

* Requiring spill drills and exercises that include strategies and equipment deployment to address floating and submerged oil; and

* Requiring that emergency response and oil spill response plans be reviewed by EPA.”

 

“We are concerned, however, that the DSEIS does not provide a detailed analysis of the Keystone Corridor Alternative routes, which would parallel the existing Keystone Pipeline and likely further reduce potential environmental impacts to groundwater resources. By determining that these routes are not reasonable, the DSEIS does not provide an analysis of their potential impacts sufficient to enable a meaningful comparison to the proposed route and other alternatives.”

 

“EPA appreciates TransCanada's commitment to conduct cleanup and restoration and to provide alternative water supplies to affected communities in the event of an oil discharge affecting not only surface waters, but also groundwater. We recommend that these commitments be clearly documented as proposed permit conditions. We believe this would give important assurances to potentially affected communities of TransCanada's responsibilities in the event of an oil discharge that affects either surface or groundwater resources.”

 

“Conclusion

 

Based on our review, we have rated the DSEIS as E0-2 ("EnvironmentalObjections - Insufficient Information") [see rating definitions below]. We look forward to continuing to work”

 

 

“EO--Environmental Objections

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.”

 

“Category 2--insufficient Information

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternative that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS.”

 

To read the complete letter, click here: http://tinyurl.com/c5e7ksp

On a visit to New York and Washington, Joe Oliver has a few things to say to opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

"President Obama, who appears to be leaning toward approval of the pipeline, acknowledged that it is difficult to sell aggressive environmental action to people who are struggling."

Effective energy innovation is not happening where you think it is, Dear Reader.

"The election was more than a month ago and many in Washington and around the country are still scrambling to break out their divining rods and polish off their crystal balls. There are still many unanswered questions about the direction of President Obama’s next term, particularly how it will govern on energy policy. Will the President embrace the economic engine of energy production, or will he side with the climate change lobby and move to support a cap and trade program like the one California just put into place? Based on the campaign rhetoric of the last year, it’s hard to tell. There is one thing that will provide a clear answer to these questions. His decision on the final fate of the Keystone XL pipeline will be the best indicator we have about the president’s plans for the energy sector over the next four years. Already subjected to four years of government study and delay, the Keystone XL pipeline was just reviewed by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ), who held a final public comment meeting on the study this week. The pipeline project will now undergo an additional environmental review by the State Department. This new review should be completed sometime later this year. After that, it’s all up to the President."

"More than 70 green groups urged President Obama in a Monday letter to kill the Keystone XL pipeline to make good on promises to address climate change."

"EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Obama administration’s chief environmental watchdog, is stepping down after nearly four years marked by high-profile brawls over global warming pollution, the Keystone XL oil pipeline, new controls on coal-fired plants and several other hot-button issues that affect the nation’s economy and people’s health. Jackson constantly found herself caught between administration pledges to solve thorny environmental problems and steady resistance from Republicans and industrial groups who complained that the agency’s rules destroyed jobs and made it harder for American companies to compete internationally. The GOP chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, said last year that Jackson would need her own parking spot at the Capitol because he planned to bring her in so frequently for questioning. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney called for her firing, a stance that had little downside during the GOP primary." ..... "Environmental activist groups and other supporters lauded Jackson for the changes she was able to make, but industry representatives said some may have come at an economic cost. Groups also noted that she leaves a large, unfinished agenda. 'There has been no fiercer champion of our health and our environment than Lisa Jackson, and every American is better off today than when she took office nearly four years ago,' said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. But she noted that Jackson’s successor will inherit an unfinished agenda, including the need to issue new health protections against carbon pollution from existing power plants."

"Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality could issue as early as next week its final evaluation on the Keystone XL project to the state's governor, a DEQ spokesman said Thursday. "'Right now it's looking like early January, but I still don't have a definitive date' on the report's release, Nebraska DEQ spokesman Brian McManus said Thursday. The report is 'very extensive,' with input from a December 4 public hearing in which 105 people testified, he said. 'Even with everyone going full-bore on it, it's taken that amount of time,' McManus said. Governor Dave Heineman is widely expected to give his blessings for Keystone XL, then forward it to the US State Department within 30 days. A spokeswoman with the State Department said last week that the agency had no scheduled release date for the project's draft supplemental environmental impact statement. A public comment period would follow the report's release, though State has not said how long that period would be."