Home » Blog » A Tale of Two Pipelines
Blog
A Tale of Two Pipelines
By Gillian McEachern | Environmental Defence
Friday, May 27, 2011
Read this blog post on the originating site
I’m in Washington, D.C. this week with Mikisew Cree Chief Roxanne Marcel and Dene Nation Chief Bill Erasmus and others at the invitation of U.S. Senator Menendez. The battle over TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline which would carry 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast each day, has been heating up here over the last few months.We were invited down specifically to speak to U.S. decision makers about the impacts the pipeline would have in Canada while comments are being sought on the draft Environmental Impact Statement. In a bizarre twist of logic, the draft does not consider there to be an impact from the pipeline upstream in Canada despite the fact that, if built, it would create the imperative to produce almost a million barrels more per day of tar sands oil. There is already more pipeline capacity than tar sands being produced.
One reason given for this assumption is that if the U.S. doesn’t take the extra oil coming from the expansion planned by the oil industry, Canada will ship it to China. This is in reference to Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship the oil to the B.C. coast and send it to Asia via supertankers. But, with mounting First Nations opposition to that pipeline and the strong legal rights they hold, Enbridge’s plans may just turn out to be a pipe dream.
The two proposed pipelines have a few things in common beyond the fact that they would ship massive amounts of dirty tar sands oil. Both are facing fierce opposition from the people living along the proposed routes because of risk of spills like we’ve seen in the last month. Both face questions about the actual need for such a dangerous and expensive project. In documents recently received by Environmental Defence through an Access to Information Request, federal civil servants stated that the proposed Gateway pipeline is not needed because Canada already has enough pipeline capacity.
And, both pipelines are facing opposition because of the role they would play in expanding production of dirty tar sands oil and holding North America back from the transition to clean energy.
That is the main point we making down here in Washington when meeting with the EPA, Department of Energy, State Department and members of Congress and the Senate – Canada can’t handle the added tar sands production that Keystone XL would demand. Another million barrels per day of tar sands production will impact local First Nations and the environment, and further hold Canada back from tackling climate change.
We’re urging them to pause, and look at the full range of impacts the pipeline would have, something our government has failed to do.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager, Climate and Energy
Tagged with: keystone xl, transcanada, pipeline, enbridge, northern gateway, environmental defence canada
