Key Facts on Keystone XL

 

Keystone XL pipeline

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 [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] 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.

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]

• 
  Joshua Crawford

  
  Jobs:
  
  The pipeline company, TransCanada, says the project should create 20,000 "man years" of new jobs. That could be 10,000 jobs for 2 years, or 5,000 jobs for 4 years, but it is NOT 20,000 jobs for multiple years, it's 20,000 jobs spread out over multiple years. Furthermore, many of those jobs will NOT be filled by Americans, they will be filled by Canadians and people from other countries. And that's according to the company building the pipeline.
  The US State Department, the lead federal agency on the project, estimates 6,500 temporary jobs will be created. The only independent study, conducted by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, concludes that it may generate 6-7,000 temporary jobs but no more than 50 permanent jobs when the work is done. Even TransCanada only claims that “hundreds” (their exact term) of permanent jobs will be created by the project.
  
  Pipeline Route:
  
  TransCanada has, at the request of Nebraska’s REPUBLICAN Gov. Dave Heineman (who called legislators in to a special session on the issue) ALREADY AGREED TO CHANGE THE ROUTE OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE. The old route crossed over an aquifer that provides ONE THIRD of the irrigation water used in the US. Nebraskans were legitimately concerned about this fact. This new route has not been subjected to the necessary review process (including but not limited to environmental reviews) which FEDERAL LAW requires from the State Department AND other agencies. This will EASILY take more than a year, which makes it basically impossible for ANYONE to meet the ridiculous 60 day deadline imposed by the GOP. Republicans know this and that’s why their demand is absolutely ridiculous!
  
  Plans for the CANADIAN oil:
  
  TransCanada’s existing contracts and business plans indicate that most of their output will be destined for export, mostly to Asia and Europe, NOT for US domestic consumption. Currently, a good portion of the oil in question is shipped from Canada to the Midwestern US via the existing Keystone pipeline (that's right, the XL project is just an EXTENSION to an existing line). Once at the end of the line in the Midwest, most of that oil is refined there and consumed there, which has helped keep gas and oil prices relatively low in the Midwest for the past few years. Once/if the pipeline is completed, most of that oil that is currently consumed in the Midwest will flow South (mostly to Texas) where it will be refined and MOST OF IT WILL BE EXPORTED. So, in the long run, the XL project may very well result in LESS of the oil being consumed in American. Which leads us to....
  
  Effect on Price of Oil in US:
  
  Here's a little something you don't hear the Republicans and proponents of this project talking about: TransCanada, THE COMPANY BUILDING THE PIPELINE, has said that this project will actually INCREASE the price of a barrel of oil in the USA! Don't believe me? According to a Feb 2011 story from Reuters:
  "Although the pipeline, if approved, would increase the supply of oil reaching the U.S., a 2009 market analysis conducted by TransCanada, builder of the pipeline, forecast higher prices. The analysis, which TransCanada conducted as part of its Canadian permit application, projected that prices would increase about $3 per barrel as a result of the pipeline.
  That would send at least an additional $2 billion from American consumers to Canadian and multinational oil interests, despite the increase in supply."
  Now do you believe me? In addition to this fact, the project will greatly benefit the dastardly Koch Bros who own businesses that "already import and refine 25 percent of oil sands crude reaching the U.S." according to the same story in Reuters.

  
  
• 
  Meagan2u

  Very nicely written and informative comment. I wonder, how many like myself, don't know that it is an extension of an already existing pipeline. Be that as it may, I think it is far too dangerous and risky to be pursued by this country. Nobody else wants the stuff. Yes, those darn Koch bros. just won't go away! When you hear they are involved in a project like this alarm bells should go off in your head! Again, Thank you for the informative article on this nasty crude oil.
  
  
  

  

  LastTechAge

  Keystone XL really is a bad idea, dangerous for the American midwest, opening too few jobs with too short a work-lifetime. I do not believe that by stopping the XL upgrade, we can have much influence on the really dirty processing that is going on in Alberta. The best we can do is protect our own environment. My own analysis is at LastTechAge.wordpress.com The New York Times yesterday showed that TransCanada is applying Eminent Domain to confiscate property along the path, right now, before Obama makes his decision.
  Charles Armentrout
  
  

  

  LastTechAge

  Let's try this again. The Keystone pipeline (the basic line that became active in February 2011) already carries the petroleum product to refineries in the US. It is one of maybe 4 or 5 that enter the US from Canada, not counting the line to Vancouver and the one being built to a the Pacific port. XL is an "upgrade" that bypasses the American heartland refineries and is to send its product to refineries on the Gulf coast, and then directly to tankers for sale everywhere *but* in the U.S.
  The problems with XL are (A) it is not about energy security, (B) it is directly over the mid American Ogallala aquifer, (C) it carries a rough slurry of bitumen in an rective fluid base, and (D) it is do this using poorly tested, extra thin walled tube, at extra high pressure.
  Pipelines do leak and enter waterways by devious paths (ref Enbridge & Michigan last year). (D) means it could leak higher than norm, (B) means it could be devastating. To deny XL does not stop the tar sands output into US refineries. This has nothing to do with you getting access to new gasoline sources, but with the big guys getting access to more big money. We should say no to XL. My full analysis at lasttechae.wordpress.com/2011/...
  Charles Armentrout, LastTechAge.wordpress.com
  
  

  SZ939

  You know, the problem with BULL SHIT Sites like this is that they promote INACCURATE AND ERRONEOUS INFOBLAB AND PRESENT IT AS "FACT" to Poor Misinformed people who then pass the BS along! The ONLY thing flowing in the new XL Pipeline will be Desulfured Crude Oil! The Refineries in Houston, TX have no use for Slurries of Bitumin! If you think about this ASININE STATEMENT, what you are claiming is that the Pipeline will carry coal dust in water suspension! The Fort MacMurray area is being surrounded with Refineries that will De-Sulfur the Oil and send Stabilized Crude Oil down to the US Gulf Coast Refineries. The Crude Oil is going there ANYWAY despite your nonsense posts here, but it was felt that a Pipeline was SAFER than shipping by Tanker Fleets along the California Coastlines to Pipelines already moving Crude to Texas! Additionally, you might want to tell your misguided readers that this Pipeline is Paralleling 5 EXISTING Pipelines, all without any impact on Aquifers in Nebraska! ALso, US Refineries DO NOT EXPORT REFINED PRODUCTS in the manner your useless Site claims! Other garbage sites claim we will export to Latin America, which is so laughable a concept as to make me ROFL! Mexico, Brazil, and Your Marxist Friend Venezuela are the main players in South America!
  Get a BRAIN PEOPLE AND GO DO SOME REAL RESEARCH!