http://dirtyoilsands.org/index.php en taylor@bachrachcommunications.com Copyright 2011 2011-12-20T16:35:56+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/canada_from_green_to_gray http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/canada_from_green_to_gray#When:16:29:07Z There was a time when Canada, symbolized by the maple leaf, was a “green,” environmentally conscientious neighbor. Remember, in the 1980s, Canada came knocking on America’s door, rightfully demanding that the United States curb the sulfur dioxide emissions causing the acid rain that was killing Canada’s lakes and streams. There was a time when Canada, symbolized by the maple leaf, was a “green,” environmentally conscientious neighbor. Remember, in the 1980s, Canada came knocking on America’s door, rightfully demanding that the United States curb the sulfur dioxide emissions causing the acid rain that was killing Canada’s lakes and streams. But today, alarms are going off up north. Increasing capture by polluter interests, Canada’s sliding into shades of gray. Experts say Ontario could lose its beloved polar bears because of a warming climate. World polar bear expert Ian Stirling, University of Alberta, citing Arctic ice loss at 10 percent per decade since 1979, says it’s unlikely this iconic animal will survive on the Ontario and Manitoba shores of Hudson Bay in 20 to 30 years. Another study predicts trouble for caribou. Some of Canada’s caribou face the possibility of local extinction because of industrial development in northeastern Alberta and the lack of effective habitat protection. Woodland caribou is listed as a threatened species, provincially and federally. “The recently released draft recovery strategy allows for 95 percent of woodland caribou habitat in northeastern Alberta to be lost in order to promote oil sands development,” the Pembina Institute has warned. Then there’s cod. Canada had to impose a moratorium on cod fishing off the coast of Newfoundland because the cod fishery collapsed, some say because of lax government oversight, poorly-managed over-fishing and exploitation. Is Canada asleep? No, Canada is in fact very much awake and very busy working on behalf of polluters. Climate Blind First let’s look at climate change. Canada is one of the world biggest emitters of greenhouse gas pollutants. “After committing to targets in Copenhagen, Environment Canada’s projections show that Canada’s current federal and provincial policies will achieve only a quarter of the reductions needed by 2020 – leaving 75 percent of the work as a question mark….”  P.J. Partington has commented. Canada ranks 54th out of 61 countries internationally – two points lower than the U.S. – earning a “very poor performance” label in the December 6 global climate performance assessment of world governments’ efforts to curb climate change. In the negotiations in Durban, Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change on December 12 to worldwide denunciation, citing the country’s previous commitment as a mistake. Environment Minister Peter Kent said, “It’s now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything it’s an impediment.” China, once recalcitrant, agreed to limits on greenhouse gas emissions and called Canada’s decision “an excuse to shirk responsibility.” Oozing with Oil Tailings pond north of Syncrude processing facility and upgrader (Courtesy of the Pembina Institute) Then there’s Canada’s warm embrace of Big Oil. The country is on a no-holds-barred trajectory to becoming a petro-state. It is the sixth largest oil producing country in the world at 3.5 million barrels per day in 2010, according to the CIA World Factbook. Imperial Oil head Bruce Marsh has said that Canada represents half of the global oil reserves that are open for private investment.” That is an enormous driver,” he told a reporter. (Let’s not forget that the energy-gobbling U.S. is Canada’s main oil export market.) The latest chapter in Canada’s Big Oil binge is big bad bitumen, Canada’s exploitation of tar sands oil, one of the most polluting, highest-carbon, greenhouse-gas-causing fuels on the planet. TransCanada and partners propose to build the Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,700-mile pipeline through five Midwestern U.S. states from Alberta to Texas and ship 700,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day for refinement into products likely to be exported. According to Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate because it could lead to higher energy prices for Americans, the Keystone corporate interests are Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Conoco Phillips Canada Marketing & Trading ULC, EnCana Corporations, Shell Trading Canada, Total E&P Canada Ltd and Trafigura Canada General Partnership. The environmental havoc already underway from extraction in Alberta is no secret. To produce one barrel, extractors level the forest, dig up four tons of earth, consume two to four barrels of fresh water, burn large amounts of natural gas and create toxic sludge holding ponds. Alberta’s booming tar sands production is polluting the Athabasca River and converting forests and farmlands to wastelands. The Keystone XL pipeline will increase production of this dirty fuel by 50 percent. Some will argue that Canada only produces less than two percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, but by producing, shipping and exporting tar sands oil at an ever-escalating pace, Canada is promoting a dirty fuel to the rest of the world to burn, thus increasing emissions multi-fold worldwide. Syncrude oil sands operations (courtesy of the Pembina Institute) Keystone’s tentacles are embedded far and wide. Former U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, lobbied for KXL when working for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.  At least 42 lobbying firms and companies are roaming the back halls and underground passageways of the U.S. Congress and U.S. federal agencies, trying to sweet-talk approval of this scheme. Koch Industries is funding Americans for Prosperity which is busy lobbying in Washington and Nebraska for the pipeline permit. Valero, a Keystone supporter and one of the world’s largest refiners, appears to be getting ready to receive, refine and export the Keystone tar sands oil, according to the Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2011. Pro-pipeline pals in Congress have crafted legislative riders to usurp and overrule President Barack Obama, established review processes and science. Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper even got President Obama’s ear at the White House in early December and made his case for what he dubbed a “no-brainer.” Talk about pulling out all the stops. Let’s get that oil flowing as the oil lobbyists oil the Washington skids! And to rub yet more salt into the wounds, on December 8, the Canadian government approved yet more tar sands production by giving the go-ahead for the construction of the $8.9 billion Joslyn North Mine in northern Alberta. And there’s more to come. Imperial Oil CEO Bruce Marsh said that his company, an Exxon subsidiary, is planning to start the Kearl oil sands mining project in Canada in 2012 and they expect to produce 110,000 barrels a day and maybe up to the 345,000 barrels a day the Canadian government has approved. As they say on TV commercials: WAIT, there’s more! Environment Canada has not implemented its long-term scientific research plan, a plan that undergirds the country’s work to mitigate air and water pollution and other environmental risks, charged Commissioner Scott Vaughan, of Canada’s Office of the Auditor General in early December and the department has stopped issuing many environmental reports. So they don’t know what the problems are or the effectiveness of their policies? Vaughan also issued a recent audit showing that Environment Canada’s enforcement program is not ensuring adequate compliance with environmental regulations and is failing to target the biggest polluters. Vaughan also found that several Canadian government agencies do not enforce safety regulations for shipping chemicals on highways and railroads and for pumping oil and gas in the country. He reported an average of two accidents a week involving the transport of dangerous materials across Canada. He concluded, for example, “Management has not acted on long-standing concerns regarding inspection and emergency plan review practices,” for transporting dangerous goods. Accompanying a map of numerous approved and proposed oil and gas pipelines across Canada, Vaughn wrote, “These pipelines, which are located in both rural and urban areas and across different terrains, require ongoing surveillance and maintenance to ensure that they continue to operate according to the National Energy Board Act, its regulations, and standards such as the Canadian Standards Association’s Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems standard. Pipeline incidents, such as gas leaks and oil spills, have occurred across Canada.” Exhibit 1.4 shows over 50 pipeline incidents. This comes against a backdrop of confident assurances from TransCanada that the Keystone pipeline would traverse the U.S. safely. Huh? A Graying Canada Canada, the second largest country in the world after Russia, has vast landscapes – three oceans, the tundra, plains, mountains, boreal forests, wetlands, rivers, lakes and coastline. Given its bounty, Canada should be proud and protective of its natural resources. National motto: From Sea to Sea. But somewhere along the way, Canada has lost its conservation conscience, as it propels itself into an oil-producing, carbon-crazy frenzy. Polar bears and caribou on the road to extinction. Cod struggling to thrive in the north Atlantic. Does Canada care? Does Canada prefer gray to green? 2011-12-23T16:29:07+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_is_a_tar_sands_pipeline_to_export_oil_out_of_the_united_states http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_is_a_tar_sands_pipeline_to_export_oil_out_of_the_united_states#When:16:35:56Z One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.  Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC. The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built. From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the breaks on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety. Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market. When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.  TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion. In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export. Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it. 2011-12-20T16:35:56+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/even_canada_doesnt_believe_its_own_spin_on_tar_sands http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/even_canada_doesnt_believe_its_own_spin_on_tar_sands#When:16:08:11Z It's time to pitch back into the controversy over Canada's lobbying offensive against proposed European penalties on fuels from tar sands. But this time we're going through the looking glass, with Canada secretly admitting it has no "credible scientific information on [the tar sands industry's] environmental performance" and the British government, which has bent over backwards to help Canada protect its highly polluting fuels, giving funding to anti-tar sands campaigners. It's time to pitch back into the controversy over Canada's lobbying offensive against proposed European penalties on fuels from tar sands. But this time we're going through the looking glass, with Canada secretly admitting it has no "credible scientific information on [the tar sands industry's] environmental performance" and the British government, which has bent over backwards to help Canada protect its highly polluting fuels, giving funding to anti-tar sands campaigners. In addition, we have further confirmation that statements made by Canadian diplomats to UK counterparts are contradicted by reality, and that in promoting tar sands, the Canadians are keeping some pretty unpleasant company. In the midst of all this, the Canadian lobbying effort to block European Union rules that would discriminate against fuels derived from tar sands continues unabated. A key vote in Europe was postponed until early next year, but the issue remains very much on the agenda, and was discussed on Monday by the European Commission's environment committee. To recap, the EU argues that fuels from tar sands - also known as oil sands - should be designated as producing 22% more greenhouse gas emissions than regular crude oil. Canada, whose vast tars sands are the second largest reserve of carbon in the world after Saudi Arabia, don't like this for two reasons. Firstly, it will make the fuels less attractive for European importers and secondly, it will be an official labelling of tar sands fuels as dirty in terms of driving global warming, as well as destroying forests and causing air and water pollution. Canada's environment minister Peter Kent said at the UN climate change summit in Durban, where Canada won the "colossal fossil" accolade from outraged campaigners, that: "There is a disproportionate amount of criticism of the oil sands which is a responsibly and sustainably developed resource, of which we are proud." In that light, the recent revelation by Canada's Postmedia News of briefing notes prepared in June for Kent and his team is particularly embarrassing. They stated:     Implementing this new monitoring system [of the impact of tar sand exploitation on land, air and water] is an urgent priority to head off threats to the industry, which needs credible scientific information on its environmental performance as soon as possible.     Environment Canada also advised that the absence of scientific evidence supporting their claims was affecting the industry's ability to raise capital from and sell into (the) foreign market. So, in private, it seems even the Canadians don't believe their own spin. The UK government, however, seems to have swallowed it whole, which makes another revelation even stranger. Despite the UK having given secret help to Canada to block the European proposals, it has also given almost $60,000 to the anti-tar sands Pembina Institute. That looks very much like a double standard to me. British ministers and officials have been, in the words of Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman in the European parliament, "extraordinarily naive ... to take the special pleading by Canada as though it were gospel truth, rather than what it is - an attempt to protect narrow financial interests." That was over a claim made by a London-based Canadian diplomat called Sushma Gera to her UK counterparts on 21 October, that "the US consideration of similar [tar sands] measures had just failed, as it was 'unimplementable'." On Friday, the US body Gera was referring to, California's Air Resources Board, showed again just how implementable such measures are in fact by voting unanimously to move forward with its low carbon fuel standard. Finally, for now, let's see if the old adage that "a man can be known by the company he keeps" rings true for Canada and its tar sands. Here's Mark Milke, at Canada's Fraser Institute, writing in the European Voice newspaper, in November:     The European Commission was wrongheaded when, in October, it singled out oil extracted from Canada's 'tar sands' by proposing a higher carbon-emissions value for it than for other sources of fossil fuel. Milke is the former research director for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Here's the FCPP on climate change:     As Frederick W. Robertson said: "There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny." We have all three in abundance in climate science. In the US, another right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, is keen on tar sands:     President Obama was elected by appealing to global warming alarmists, among other groups on the left. Will he cave in to their demands to leave untouched the vast oil sand deposits in Alberta that could provide millions of barrels of oil to fuel economic growth in both countries for decades to come? Development of Alberta's energy sector would be led by US companies, too, thereby boosting growth on both sides of the border. But the Heritage Foundation is not so keen on tackling climate change, despite every nation and science academy on the planet accepting the need for action:     The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus. There's plenty more of this from, for example the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute and Italy's Instituto Brunon Leoni, but you get the picture: promoting tar sands fits very snugly with denying the need for action on global warming. Bearing all that in mind, will the British government persist in blocking those European nations who want to brand tar sands fuels as dirty? Will its condemnation of Canada for pulling out of the Kyoto treaty - "deeply regrettable" - inform its thinking on tar sands? I hear whispers that the UK position is shifting but, having asked the department for transport, nothing has changed officially. 2011-12-20T16:08:11+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/dont_let_the_keystone_xl_bait_and_switch_scam_diminish_american_leadership http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/dont_let_the_keystone_xl_bait_and_switch_scam_diminish_american_leadership#When:16:05:11Z TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast for export has become a central part of the debate in the United States about how we fight climate change. American leadership to fight climate change is critical at home and internationally. The pipeline project marks a step in the wrong direction for the United States – leading us towards dirtier forms of fuel that are not compatible with fighting climate change. However, the oil industry is trying to pull a bait and switch scam with Keystone XL – offering it as a path to economic and national security when the pipeline is actually a job killer that is mostly meant for export. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest and there are strong economic and security arguments to back this up. America can show leadership on clean energy and on fighting climate change by rejecting this dirty fuel project. TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast for export has become a central part of the debate in the United States about how we fight climate change. American leadership to fight climate change is critical at home and internationally. The pipeline project marks a step in the wrong direction for the United States – leading us towards dirtier forms of fuel that are not compatible with fighting climate change. However, the oil industry is trying to pull a bait and switch scam with Keystone XL – offering it as a path to economic and national security when the pipeline is actually a job killer that is mostly meant for export. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest and there are strong economic and security arguments to back this up. America can show leadership on clean energy and on fighting climate change by rejecting this dirty fuel project. The Keystone XL pipeline debate is part of a pattern of corporate scams and misinformation from the stock market bubble of the 1990’s to the real estate bubble of the early 2000’s. Keystone XL continues this pattern of industry risk taking and ignoring of long-term dangers (in this case climate change) for increasingly smaller short-term gains. The risks to our farms and waters of Keystone XL have been a matter of strong concern all along the pipeline pathway for many months now. The fact that this pipeline is also a job killer rather than a job creator has also been well documented. What is less well understood are the many other economic dangers of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  A recent article by former Federal Trade Commission attorney and former counsel to the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee and the Senate Judiciary Committee Henry Banta raises a number of questions when it comes to the economics of the Keystone XL pipeline project:     Hardly mentioned at all in the current debate about jobs is that the pipeline could have the effect of reducing employment in the U.S. oil and gas industry.     The notion of Canada as a more secure source must be viewed with considerable skepticism by anyone who is old enough to remember the energy crises of 1973 and 1979.     In whose interest is the end run past the refineries of the Upper Midwest? TransCanada told the Canadian Government that these U.S. refineries and their customers have been enjoying low crude oil and product prices because of Canadian crude oil. The Keystone XL line would end this “discount” and raise fuel costs in the region about $4 billion.     What advantages does the Gulf offer? Perhaps that it is a “free trade zone” meaning that the crude is free of any trade restrictions and some taxes.     Indeed there is considerable evidence that the owners of the line intend to export either crude oil or the refined product. If that is what they have in mind, what’s in it for us?     Proposals for new tar sands pipelines in Canada are facing delays due to continued public concerns and tar sands oil is unlikely to be going to Asia anytime soon unless it comes through the Keystone XL pipeline. Are the citizens of the U.S. being asked to take a significant environmental risk in order that the oil companies can get past the obstacle of an unwilling public in Canada? Similarly, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will not help us from a security perspective. Nancy Soderberg, former deputy national security adviser and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations recently wrote an article that summarizes the security concerns with Keystone XL as follows:     Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline is important for U.S. leadership in making sure that the security of the United States is not compromised by reliance on oil and that the U.S. plays a global leadership role in building a renewable energy economy.     As retired Army Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson noted in a recent blog, the pipeline’s biggest client, Valero Energy Corp., informed investors that the refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, would be focused on exports, keeping American consumers vulnerable to global oil price fluctuations.     The idea behind Keystone XL was to give Canadian businesses access to the ocean and global market, not to help America reduce its dependence on foreign oil.     Committing ourselves to projects like Keystone XL would further lock us into a global oil market that aids and abets tyrants and terrorists, and holds American consumers hostage.     Approving such a project would severely diminish U.S. global leadership in building a world based on renewable energy, combating growing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and reducing dependence on a volatile oil market. Climate change is a global problem. And it will not be solved without American leadership. The harm to our pocketbooks, homes, health and communities is also being felt all across our country in the violent storms, droughts, floods and fires that we have experienced even in the last year. Just this morning, the news is filled with the unusual blizzard in the southern plains. For America to demonstrate that it is serious about tackling climate change, the world has to see us not only moving forward with clean energy, but also fighting dirty energy. Keystone XL was the first time the world noticed a serious movement to say no to dirty fuels and no to business as usual in America. When America has been at its best, it is optimistic and pragmatic. This is the way America behaved in organizing the Berlin airlift, putting a man on the moon and accelerating us into a high tech world. The many businesses, workers and investors in America already moving toward a clean energy economy are optimistic and pragmatic and represent all that is best in America. In contrast, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is pessimistic and cynical. The pipeline’s proponents are trying to scam people with exaggerated jobs numbers and a myth that this pipeline would make us more secure. The world is not waiting to follow a pessimistic and cynical America. The idea that we can continue to rely on dirtier and dirtier forms of energy and lead the world is absurd. The world is looking for leadership to fight climate change – the worst economic and national security threat facing us in coming decades. America needs to stand strong against oil industry ploys to push a tar sands pipeline as a jobs plan or a security venture when it is neither. We need to show leadership and reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and other tar sands expansion projects. 2011-12-20T16:05:11+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/will_republican_high_stakes_gamble_kill_the_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/will_republican_high_stakes_gamble_kill_the_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline#When:16:19:00Z In a huge overreach, Senate Republicans insisted yesterday that a provision that would require the President to make a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline be included in the tax extension package. The package is likely to be voted on in the Senate today and go to the House for approval early next week. In a huge overreach, Senate Republicans insisted yesterday that a provision that would require the President to make a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline be included in the tax extension package.  The package is likely to be voted on in the Senate today and go to the House for approval early next week. NRDC responded by calling out the inclusion as nothing but a political ploy.  My colleague Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, issued the following statement: "Special interest riders do not belong in legislation designed to help the American people. Republicans took the payroll tax-cut extension bill hostage and delivered a year-end bonus to Big Oil. The president went along in order to save hard-working Americans from a tax increase on January 1, 2012. We get that. “But with the Republicans forcing the president’s hand, he will have no choice but to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as not in the national interest.” The President said last week that he would not accept the inclusion of the pipeline tacked on to the tax extension legislation.  Yesterday evening, a senior Administration official made it clear the President intends to stand by his statement.  In a Reuters piece entitled, “Obama backs tax deal but pipeline now in doubt”, the senior official is quoted saying that Republican insistence means the pipeline ”almost certainly will not be built” because the President has made clear that he will not approve the pipeline without time for an adequate review of the health, safety and environmental risks. This view was echoed by Senate Democrats.  Senator Schumer, commenting to Bloomberg News, said that the inclusion of the provision was a “Pyrric victory” for the Republicans because the President won’t be forced into a decision. And the former Chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee and now it’s ranking Democrat made similar comments earlier yesterday, saying, "I think it's shortsighted for the Republicans to force a decision without giving the president enough time to fully consider it…And if they force him to do that, it'd seem to me, the only logical thing for him to do is to say no to it." Democratic supporters of the President said that the Republicans had likely handed the President “the perfect opportunity” to reject the pipeline and made it clear that they  would be watching this closely.  Over 50 supporters sent a letter to the President earlier this week expressing their concern about the pipeline and asking the President to stand strong against it. Similar sentiments were expressed by Bill McKibben, the founder of Tar Sands Action and 350.org and lead organizer of the protests at the White House this summer and fall.  The protests brought together a wide range of opponents to the pipeline –Nebraska ranchers, veterens, scientists, clean energy advocates, transit unions, and college students, among many others.  And in early November, over 10,000 citizens circled the White House asking the President to reject the pipeline. The President will undoubtedly be hearing from these constituencies in the days ahead.  And the broader American public will also be watching for leadership from the President.  After all, if the Republicans get their way and the pipeline is approved, it will only embolden them to hold future legislation hostage. The Republicans have argued this week that the pipeline would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.  They have claimed that it would provide critical energy security benefits to America. The fact is it will do neither.  Instead, the pipeline will take the dirtiest oil on the planet, push it through the heartland of America to the Gulf coast, and send it to the highest bidder around the world. Few permanent jobs will be created and the only independent study on the job impact found that the pipeline would kill more jobs than it creates by suppressing clean energy jobs and raising gas prices. If you don’t believe me, watch these clips – they are of TransCanada admitting that the pipeline will create only hundreds of permanent jobs (even this figure is highly suspect), TransCanada admitting the pipeline will cause gas prices to increase in the Midwest, and TransCanada refusing to put a restriction on export of the oil outside of the U.S. Couple this with enormous risks to the American heartland and to our climate, and it becomes pretty readily apparent that the only beneficiary of this pipeline is the oil industry and the politicians it bankrolls.    If this provision survives the next week of Congressional debate, there will be a huge spotlight on TransCanada and the claims being made about the pipeline.  They may soon regret having escalated this issue.  What was a relatively obscure debate about the pipeline has now become a political catfight that is spinning out of control. The President should make clear that if he is strong-armed into making a decision on the pipeline in the next 60 days, that he will have no choice but to reject it. 2011-12-17T16:19:00+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/dealing_with_big_oil_temper_tantrums_as_companies_move_away_from_tar_sands http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/dealing_with_big_oil_temper_tantrums_as_companies_move_away_from_tar_sands#When:16:12:44Z I’m a banana-a-day kind of person and this morning my Chiquita tasted extra sweet knowing that the company has joined thousands of others who are speaking out against tar sands oil. Yesterday, Chiquita publicly confirmed that they want to see their fuel come from another source than the higher-carbon and more polluting Canadian tar sands. I’m a banana-a-day kind of person and this morning my Chiquita tasted extra sweet knowing that the company has joined thousands of others who are speaking out against tar sands oil. Yesterday, Chiquita publicly confirmed that they want to see their fuel come from another source than the higher-carbon and more polluting Canadian tar sands. Business groups in the Canadian province of Alberta are already hitting back, calling for a boycott of Chiquita. But yet another call for a boycott just because a company is doing the right thing to fight climate change comes across as little more than a temper tantrum.  As people feel the impacts of extreme weather from climate change in their everyday lives, they are rightly asking questions about why the oil industry is continuing to go after ever dirtier sources of fossil fuels that make it impossible to fight climate change. World opinion is drawing the line at tar sands. Chiquita is joining a growing, civic-minded movement that is saying no to dirty fuels. Alberta businesses should be promoting, not undermining clean energy – this is in their best economic interest. Tar sands oil is not compatible with fighting climate change and having a healthy and prosperous future. Chiquita reached its decision after a year of discussions with ForestEthics. In a letter to ForestEthics, the company wrote: “We are committed to directing our transportation providers to avoid, where possible, fuels from tar sands refineries and to adopt a strategy of continuous improvement towards the elimination of those fuels. We have recently confirmed this policy with our Company’s providers through an RFP process to ensure that this fuel is not being used for ground trucking transportation.” What this means is that the trucks moving bananas to our breakfast table will be tar sands free as much as possible. It also means that Chiquita and its trucking companies are sending a strong message to refineries and others along the fuel supply chain that they do not want tar sands in their fuel mix. ForestEthics has identified the U.S. refineries that take tar sands to help out companies trying to avoid this higher carbon and more polluting source of oil and Mother Jones just pulled together a map of tar sands refiners based on the ForestEthics research. Chiquita joins Walgreens, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Quiksilver, Gap Inc., Levi Strauss & Co., Timberland, Bed Bath & Beyond, FedEx, Avon, American Eagle Outfitters, LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics, and Liz Claiborne Inc. in making a commitment to avoid higher carbon fuels. These companies are showing courage in stepping up their efforts to fight climate change by dealing directly with their own fuel use. Chiquita also joins mayors, farmers, religious leaders, business leaders, scientists, veterans, workers and many others across North America is saying no to tar sands. So what gives tar sands industry supporters the right to call for a boycott of Chiquita and other companies that make the right choice to avoid tar sands? Nothing. What we are seeing is part of a broader and desperate effort to stop any type of clean fuels policy. This despite the fact that by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producer’s own numbers tar sands greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise and tar sands is getting dirtier, not cleaner. Yet, tar sands supporters are attacking Chiquita today as they attacked each of the other companies that made a similar commitment to fight climate change and dirty fuels. Tar sands supporters are also fighting the low carbon fuel standard in California. They are fighting the clean fuels standard in the U.S. Northeast. They are fighting the fuel quality directive in Europe. And they are the main cause for Canada dumping their global climate commitments even though doing so will not be good for the Canadian economy according to a Pembina Institute analysis.   Chiquita’s decision is courageous and it is part of a turning of the tide against tar sands. The costs of climate change are already high and growing. Chiquita is taking an important step to help protect us against the dangers of climate change and destructive oil extraction. 2011-12-16T16:12:44+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/going_bananas_over_tar_sands http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/going_bananas_over_tar_sands#When:16:09:13Z When you look at a bunch of bananas in your neighbourhood grocery store, a few thoughts might spring to mind: breakfast, banana splits on hot summer days or vacationing in the tropics. Chances are you don’t think about oil. But, getting all of those bananas to customers takes a lot of it. When you look at a bunch of bananas in your neighbourhood grocery store, a few thoughts might spring to mind: breakfast, banana splits on hot summer days or vacationing in the tropics. Chances are you don’t think about oil. But, getting all of those bananas to customers takes a lot of it. That’s why the tar sands industry should be paying close attention to today’s news that Chiquita Banana, which feeds North Americans millions of bananas each day, has committed to avoid fuel from tar sands refineries for its transportation fleet. In doing so, Chiquita is joining a growing number of big U.S. companies that are rejecting carbon-heavy tar sands oil in efforts to lower the carbon footprint of transporting their goods to customers. Fifteen companies have already publicly announced such efforts including companies as different as Walgreens and Whole Foods. Big businesses aren’t the only ones opting for cleaner fuels. Chiquita’s announcement comes as California’s Air Resources Board is debating proposed changes to its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). California first adopted the LCFS in 2009 to require fuel suppliers to phase out dirty fuels like tar sands and invest in cleaner alternatives. Big oil companies have been mounting an intense lobbying effort to weaken the standard, in particular to turn a blind eye to the higher carbon content of tar sands oil. Tomorrow the Air Resources Board will debate changes to the LCFS, with environmental groups and clean energy companies that are creating jobs as a result of the standard lining up to support a strong fuel policy and big oil companies fighting against it. Europe is also considering a similar policy that would discriminate against tar sands oil because it has more carbon than conventional oil. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers might be pleased with the weak outcome at Durban and Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, but these market shifts show that it will be short lived. If the industry were listening, it would be ramping up investment in cleaner, low carbon fuels and supporting regulations to reduce carbon pollution. So is it? Nope. A recent analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that over the past five years, for every dollar the oil industry spent to find and produce more oil, less than half a penny was spent on producing renewable fuels. The industry has invested 50 times more in producing tar sands alone than in renewable energy. ‘Tar sands free bananas’ doesn’t exactly have the same ring to it as fair trade coffee, but as we’ve seen in the past with coffee and FSC certification of paper, when the market demands more environmentally and socially responsible products, the suppliers need to eventually respond. 2011-12-15T16:09:13+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/the_ethics_of_ethical_oil http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/the_ethics_of_ethical_oil#When:00:34:35Z We can all agree that exploiting human suffering for commercial gain is unethical and immoral. Yet, this is exactly what the oil industry’s “ethical oil” argument does. The “Ethical Oil” argument simply put is that since Canada is not as oppressive a country as Saudi Arabia or Nigeria or Venezuela, that therefore it is ethically and morally superior to consume oil from Canada. At first, this claim may seem to make sense, but rather than demonstrate that the oil industry and its political supporters are compassionate, ethical and moral, it actually proves the opposite. We can all agree that exploiting human suffering for commercial gain is unethical and immoral.  Yet, this is exactly what the oil industry’s “ethical oil” argument does. The “Ethical Oil” argument simply put is that since Canada is not as oppressive a country as Saudi Arabia or Nigeria or Venezuela, that therefore it is ethically and morally superior to consume oil from Canada.  At first, this claim may seem to make sense, but rather than demonstrate that the oil industry and its political supporters are compassionate, ethical and moral, it actually proves the opposite.  The “ethical oil” argument is immoral and unethical for three reasons.  First, it exploits human suffering in developing countries merely to advance oil industry commercial interests.  Second, by suggesting that consumption of tar sands oil will improve the lives of oppressed people when it will not, it manipulates the decent desire of Americans north and south of the border to relieve suffering and protect the environment.  Third, it trades on Canada’s humane democracy to sell its product when it is the Canadian people – not the oil industry – that are responsible and deserve credit for this democracy.  Global demand for oil is so great that faster extraction of Canadian oil will not reduce demand for oil from oppressive countries.  If the U.S. buys less oil from the Middle East, then India and China will step in and keep demand for Middle Eastern oil high, and business in the Middle East will continue as usual.  The industry knows this.  Therefore, buying Canadian tar sands oil cannot and will not create economic pressure on oil dictatorships to increase political freedom, reduce human oppression or protect the environment.  Unlike prior efforts to use consumer pressure to force change in oppressive regimes, the oil industry has not suggested that buying tar sands oil will support a boycott oil from oppressive countries, allow the oil industry to cut commercial ties with oppressive regimes, result in economic aid for uprisings to overthrow dictatorships, or otherwise protect people in oil dictatorships.  Instead the oil industry seeks to hide the truth that it has and will continue to work hand in glove with these same oppressive regimes.  Thus, the “ethical oil” argument showcases human suffering in developing countries and implies that buying oil from Canada will relieve this suffering when in fact purchasing oil from Canada will not improve the lives of anybody in an oil dictatorship.  The Canadian oil industry is merely exploiting human suffering solely for the purpose of advancing its own commercial and political interests.  This exploitation is immoral.  Moreover, the industry is manipulating the decent heartfelt desire of good people who want to relieve the pain of other human beings and protect our global environment.  What is manipulative is that the oil industry tells consumers that supporting Tar Sands oil will somehow help relieve human suffering and prevent environmental destruction when it will not.  It encourages U.S. consumers to feel morally superior when in fact they make no moral choices.  Consumers don’t know and have no choice about where the oil they put in their cars comes from.  Gas station pumps are not labeled by country of origin or the morality of these countries.  Instead, the oil we consume comes from a variety of countries, primarily depending on the cost of transportation, oil company commercial decisions and geopolitical factors.  Oil companies choose where the oil that we buy at the pump comes from and this choice is based on market factors, not ethics.  In particular, the reason that the U.S. consumes oil from Canada is because of geographic proximity – not morals or ethics.  It is cheaper for Canadians to ship oil to the U.S. than to other countries and Canada’s overseas export options are very limited.  Since we as consumers have no choice about the source of our oil or the reasons for buying this oil, it is not logically possible for us to take moral credit for buying oil from Canada or anywhere else.  The “ethical oil” argument implies otherwise and therefore is misleading and manipulative. Finally, it is important to look more deeply into why Canadian oil is claimed to be “ethical.”  The basis for this claim is that Canada is a humane democracy whose laws and culture provide greater protection for human rights and the environment, such that the oil industry operates more ethically in Canada than it does in other countries.  But Canada is the way it is because of the past and current efforts of the Canadian people, not because oil sales made Canada this way.  Since oil is not responsible for Canada’s more “ethical” culture, buying oil from Canada is not what will sustain this culture.  Oil or no oil, it is the will and democratic effort of Canadians that have made and will make Canada more ethical.  If oil made countries ethical then we should expect that oil exporting countries would be more ethical than other countries, but the opposite is more often the case.  If anything, the oil boom in Canada threatens Canadian democracy because oil industry money and power profoundly corrupt democratic governments in part by saturating the wallets of politicians.  Trading on Canada’s ethical heritage to sell a product is a way of taking credit for moral and ethical choices that the oil industry did not make.   The truth about the “ethical oil” PR campaign is that the industry is using human suffering and environmental destruction in other countries to justify the oppression of indigenous people in Canada, the destruction of enormous areas of virgin Canadian forest, the pollution of some of the purist water in the world, and the emission of disastrous amounts of air pollution into our global skies.  Exploiting human pain for commercial gain is immoral.  Manipulating the good intentions of honest people for commercial gain is unethical.  Trading on the humanity of a democracy bought with the conviction, sweat and blood of its people to sell a product is profoundly disrespectful of the generations of everyday people who have kept Canada free and humane.  The “ethical oil” argument is manipulative, dishonest, base and vile.  The falsely pious who smugly trumpet it, including Prime Minister Harper, Governor Schweitzer of Montana, and a choir of other politicians and oil industry executives and PR flacks, should stop their hypocritical crowing and reflect on the lack of ethics in “ethical oil.” 2011-12-14T00:34:35+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/public_outcry_against_tar_sands_pipelines_increases_as_canadian_prime_minis http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/public_outcry_against_tar_sands_pipelines_increases_as_canadian_prime_minis#When:22:24:11Z Today, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will meet with President Obama in Washington DC. While the public reason for the meeting is about border issues, it is expected that climate, tar sands and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be discussed. Indeed, the Canadian conservative government has waged its pro-tar sands, anti-climate agenda in the U.S. for several years now as well as in Europe. This is out of sync with the Canadian and American public who are increasingly rejecting tar sands as unsustainable and incompatible with combating climate change. Just yesterday, Canadian regulators announced the permitting process for the Enbridge Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline has been put on hold for a year largely due to need to carefully consider the extraordinary public opposition and concern. It is time for the Canadian conservative government to stop being a lobbyist for Big Oil and to stop trying to undermine climate and clean energy policies around the world in an attempt to clear the way for unchecked tar sands oil expansion. And if Prime Minister Harper expects to change the commitment of the Obama Administration to conduct a new review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, he will find he has misjudged the depth of U.S. concerns about tar sands. Today, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will meet with President Obama in Washington DC.  While the public reason for the meeting is about border issues, it is expected that climate, tar sands and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be discussed.  Indeed, the Canadian conservative government has waged its pro-tar sands, anti-climate agenda in the U.S. for several years now as well as in Europe.  This is out of sync with the Canadian and American public who are increasingly rejecting tar sands as unsustainable and incompatible with combating climate change.  Just yesterday, Canadian regulators announced the permitting process for the Enbridge Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline has been put on hold for a year largely due to need to carefully consider the extraordinary public opposition and concern.  It is time for the Canadian conservative government to stop being a lobbyist for Big Oil and to stop trying to undermine climate and clean energy policies around the world in an attempt to clear the way for unchecked tar sands oil expansion. And if Prime Minister Harper expects to change the commitment of the Obama Administration to conduct a new review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, he will find he has misjudged the depth of U.S. concerns about tar sands. Unfortunately, the Harper government has been on a roll lately – a roll that is quickly taking Canada’s international reputation downhill: International Climate Negotiations: As the ongoing Durban climate talks continue, Canada has created dissension announcing they are formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol citing that major polluting countries like China needed to participate in an international agreement.  But even after China signaled its possible willingness to engage on Kyoto, the Canadian government held firm – showing that the real impetus is the growing climate change pollution from the tar sands, not China’s actions.  The prospect of withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol has outraged other countries and the Canadian public.  Even before this announcement, Canada’s record on climate has been disappointing.  According to the Pembina Institute, even if Canada were to implement all existing federal and provincial climate policies on the books, Canada would be nowhere to meeting its climate target.   Skyrocketing emissions from tar sands is a big part of the problem.  In the last two decades, tar sands emissions have more than doubled.  Tar sands emissions will double again from 2009 – 2020 and are likely to climb well into the 2030s. And while the U.S. has a long way to go to seriously combating climate change and also needs to get its act together in the current international negotiations, Canada isn’t even matching the U.S. on key climate policies.  The Obama administration is now regulating GHG emissions from certain emitters this year; Canada has no plan in place.  The Obama administration has also proposed 18 times more spending on renewable energy per capita than the Government of Canada. European Clean Fuel Standards:  In Europe, the Canadian conservative government has been aggressively lobbying against a proposed clean fuels policy by the European Commission to reduce its carbon footprint.  This lobbying has been documented extensively by Friends of the Earth Europe.  Because tar sands oil is so much more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional oil, the European Union wants to put tar sands in a different category.  This has prompted an intense counter lobby by the Canadian government working closely with the oil industry to undermine this climate effort.  The Harper government’s interference in Europe’s pursuit of a clean fuels policy has been controversial. African civil rights leaders: Last week, Nobel Peace Laureate  Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other African leaders issued an open letter to the Canadian government stating that Canada’s previous global leadership on human rights and environmental protection has given way to its poor record on climate in the name of producing tar sands oil. This comes on the heels of a letter from more than a dozen Nobel Laureates, including the Dalai Lama, decrying the Keystone XL pipeline. Canadian and American opposition to tar sands pipelines:  Yesterday, in response to significant Canadian opposition and concern, Canada’s permitting agency announced the decision to permit the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline would be delayed by a year.  This comes on the heels of another major announcement in the U.S. also responding to significant public concern to conduct a new environmental review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  Greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands is one of the key issues in these pipeline debates.  For example, replacing conventional crude with tar sands from the Keystone XL pipeline would create the equivalent emissions of adding over five million new cars on the road, eliminating many of the gains the Obama Administration has made in better fuel efficiency standards.  Both pipelines would trigger an expansion of all tar sands operations. Around the world we see a growing sentiment that it is time to draw the line at tar sands.   In Canada, the public wants strong clean energy and pro-climate policies which is happening at the provincial levels such as in Ontario and British Columbia.  In the U.S., Americans are opposing Keystone XL given the project would help lead to an increased dependence on tar sands making it far more difficult – if not impossible – to meet clean energy goals and to address catastrophic climate change. Adopting clean fuel climate policies is urgent given evidence that climate change is already happening in both countries impacting water supply and creating extreme weather.  Unfortunately, the Harper government has allied itself with big oil isolating itself from the Canadian public as it seeks undermine climate policy in Canada but also abroad.  It is time that both the U.S. and Canada draw the line and stop this growing trend to rely on tar sands which only takes us only further and further to irreversible climate impacts. 2011-12-07T22:24:11+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/gitxsan_treaty_society_supports_enbridge_gitxsan_community_opposes_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/gitxsan_treaty_society_supports_enbridge_gitxsan_community_opposes_pipeline#When:22:19:14Z On Friday, Dec. 2, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Elmer Derrick and Enbridge Executive Vice-President Janet Holder publicly signed an equity agreement. The $7-million deal allegedly cemented Gitxsan support for Enbridge's controversial proposed $5.5-billion tar sands pipeline project. However, within hours dissent was visible in the community and by Monday night a new community consensus against the project was emerging. On Friday, Dec. 2, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Elmer Derrick and Enbridge Executive Vice-President Janet Holder publicly signed an equity agreement. The $7-million deal allegedly cemented Gitxsan support for Enbridge's controversial proposed $5.5-billion tar sands pipeline project. However, within hours dissent was visible in the community and by Monday night a new community consensus against the project was emerging. The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, as it is known, would involve the construction of two 1,170 kilometre pipelines from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. Enbridge, and the Canadian and Albertan governments, have argued that project is a national strategic asset which would ensure that Canadian tar sands exports can access energy-hungry Asian markets. Critics have vehemently opposed the project as an unwarranted and unjustifiable risk to local ecosystems. Aboriginal peoples and environmentalists have suggested that an accident is not a possibility but an inevitability. A report released last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pembina Institute, and Living Oceans Society suggested that the pipeline and associated coastal tanker traffic would compromise salmon habitat, rich coastal waters, as well as First Nations traditional livelihoods and economic well-being. Katie Terhune of the Living Oceans Society clearly stated their concern: "It is not a question of if, but when, a spill will happen." First Nations, whose unceded territory encompasses the vast majority of British Columbia, have strongly asserted that the government does not have the jurisdiction to approve this pipeline without their consent. A united front among Aboriginal communities has developed against the movement of tar sands oil through their territories. On Dec. 1, in a Vancouver ceremony marking the one-year anniversary of the Save the Fraser Declaration, several additional First Nations signed on expanding public opposition to more than 130 Aboriginal communities. When Elmer Derrick signed the equity agreement with Enbridge the following day, a break appeared to be forming in the wall of First Nations opposition. A negotiator for the Gitxsan Treaty Society, Derrick said he acted on the authority of the chiefs, speaking for a majority of them. In a video released by Enbridge, vice-president Holder suggested that "the public needs to understand there isn't as much opposition as they may believe." She continued, "truly we do have First Nations support all through British Columbia and Alberta." In a news release "on behalf of the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs," Derrick claimed, "we have established a relationship of trust with Enbridge, we have examined and assessed this project, and we believe it can be built and operated safely." Explaining Gitxsan Treaty Society's decision, Derrick said, "the young people were telling us that there's no hope for them.... They cannot eat Gitxsan's title and rights. And that's the problem." He suggested signing the deal with Enbridge offered "a way to change title and rights into economic opportunities." However, while people cannot eat abstract legal formulations like Aboriginal title and rights, they can and do eat salmon. In fact, salmon has long been the mainstay of the Gitxsan people. The salmon fishery remains a yearly ritual, as it has for generations. Children learn their stories and traditions working alongside their grandmothers in the smokehouse. Salmon is the heart of the people. Keep reading on Rabble.ca 2011-12-06T22:19:14+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/mandating_a_keystone_xl_decision_another_polluter_ploy_that_congress_should http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/mandating_a_keystone_xl_decision_another_polluter_ploy_that_congress_should#When:22:17:33Z Polluter lobbyists launched their latest ploy to funnel massive quantities of dirty fuel through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. It would seem that even though the State Department and President Obama admitted they need more timeto address the project’s considerable problem areas, the industry figures they’ll get a better shake in Congress. Polluter lobbyists launched their latest ploy to funnel massive quantities of dirty fuel through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. It would seem that even though the State Department and President Obama admitted they need more timeto address the project’s considerable problem areas, the industry figures they’ll get a better shake in Congress. Nebraska Republican Congressman Lee Terry, now a close ally to the tar sands industry, announced on Friday his plans to introduce a bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve – not require FERC to consider or evaluate — the pipeline within 30 days of receiving an application. Under current law, the President has the responsibility to decide on projects that cross international boundaries like Keystone XL, to decide on the merits, on the basis of facts and public comments, not make a decision on an artificial timeline mandated by Congress. We’ve made clear before that tar sands pipelines need more study, because the fuel is more corrosive, and pumped heated and at high pressure.  His plan amounts to skipping a review altogether and replacing it with a rubber stamp approval. Adding insult to injury, Congressman Terry told a reporter that the House leadership will stick his pipeline bill into the presumably “must-pass” payroll tax cut and unemployment extension bill that Congress will vote on before year’s end. Tar Sands Toxic Sludge (image courtesy: www.cbc.ca) The industry and Mr. Terry show a disregard for safety, and those species, places and people who might be harmed by a spill. According to media reports, under the bill, if FERC fails to act in 30 days, the permit would automatically be granted.  In addition, FERC lacks expertise on pipelines and tar sands, and isn’t accountable to the President, who should have final say over whether we commit to generations of dirty fuels coming from Keystone XL. So in essence, the Terry team which presumably includes pipeline Canadian petro-giant TransCanada, wants to set up a fast-track, insider-greased, totally untested, expedited, merits-be-damned permitting process and ignore all the science, analysis and public comment on the environmental and other impacts of this 2,000-mile pipeline. What’s curious is Congressman Terry will have to explain his scheme to the ranchers and farms whose land and jobs would be endangered by Keystone XL running through his state. His bill may satisfy the holiday wish list of big polluters, but at what cost to the people who would have to clean the mess from a major spill. Extracting more dirty energy and shipping it down through the heart of the U.S. from Canada is not the answer to American energy security.  In fact, company officials have all but said the oil would be exported. It also sets us back in creating homegrown clean energy industry jobs that can power our economy for generations while reducing the threat of climate change. 2011-12-06T22:17:33+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/the_denialists http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/the_denialists#When:16:00:32Z Some creative legislative machinations are being put in service of the Denialists. Senator Lugar of Indiana, who really should know better, has introduced a bill to force the President to decide one way or another on KXL 60 days after the bill passes; yet another attempt to impose an arbitrary deadline on a project for which there is no need and certainly no rush. Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska would one up Senator Lugar and give it just 30 days while also taking the decision out of the President’s hands. And there is talk of attaching this to bills that must be passed in December. These maneuvers show plenty of gamesmanship but produce no jobs and no movement toward a new energy economy. This morning I walked from Union Station past the Capitol. The cupola was gleaming in the crisp blue air. It was grand. Then I went into one of those buildings where the business of government is carried out and saw the House of Representatives in action. It was garbage. The occasion was a Hearing of the House Subcommittee on Denying Climate Change aka Energy and Commerce and the topic was the Keystone XL pipeline. On November 10th President Obama, who makes this decision according to Executive Order, decided to delay it till after the election. It was a sensible decision politically, because an approval would have severely disappointed greens and youth, while a rejection would have angered some elements of the labor movement. The decision was also just plain sensible, because the route of the pipeline crosses a critical aquifer, the climate impacts haven’t been studied, the State Dept overseeing the permitting has been too cozy with the builder, and the purpose of the pipeline was misrepresented by TransCanada and misunderstood by Congress and the public. It’s no secret that Republican majority likes the pipeline and wants it approved. That could be a considered opinion or a reflection of the position of their Big Oil donors. But having failed to persuade the President, at least for now, the House “leadership” has decided to bash the President as anti-jobs even as they parry his every attempt to pass a jobs bill. The Hearing wasn’t about passing legislation, protecting public health or creating jobs, it was about making sure the President fails. It’s this kind of thing that gives government a bad name. What was shocking was the manner in which three labor unions lined up to join the Republican cause. These are unions that would gain jobs from KXL so it’s entirely understandable that they support the project. But however disappointed they might feel about the President’s deferral, it’s hard to see how they benefit from empowering the party that wishes to kill the labor movement, or from a Romney presidency. On Friday morning every Republican Member and every majority witness repeated discredited and inflated jobs numbers. Every one said it was “shovel ready” which is absurd considering that Nebraska has no approved route. The revelations that TransCanada has bulled landowners and rigged the process were ignored. Every majority Member and witness simply denied the facts that have come out about this pipeline. Denying climate change has led to a denial habit. Some creative legislative machinations are being put in service of the Denialists. Senator Lugar of Indiana, who really should know better, has introduced a bill to force the President to decide one way or another on KXL 60 days after the bill passes; yet another attempt to impose an arbitrary deadline on a project for which there is no need and certainly no rush. Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska would one up Senator Lugar and give it just 30 days while also taking the decision out of the President’s hands. And there is talk of attaching this to bills that must be passed in December. These maneuvers show plenty of gamesmanship but produce no jobs and no movement toward a new energy economy. After the Hearing I walked past the Capitol again. It was probably my imagination, but it seemed that the cupola wasn’t gleaming as brightly. Fortunately I saw my friend Marty, a Native American organizer from Minneapolis . He told me he had a vision that Keystone XL won’t be built. Tribal leaders shared that vision with President Obama during the Tribal Summit that took place at the same time as the Denialists’ Hearing. The alliance of cowboys, Indians, students, elders, grasstops and grassroots that is working to buck up President Obama on climate change isn’t giving up on the future. That can’t be denied. 2011-12-05T16:00:32+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/conspiracy_theorists_twisted_logic http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/conspiracy_theorists_twisted_logic#When:18:04:05Z Who is influencing Canada’s resource priorities? In a puzzling appeal to anti-American sentiment, some industry supporters claim that U.S. foundations are threatening Canadian policy by donating money to environmental groups here. These arguments have appeared in publications such as the Vancouver Sun and Calgary Herald, and on Sun TV. Who is influencing Canada’s resource priorities? In a puzzling appeal to anti-American sentiment, some industry supporters claim that U.S. foundations are threatening Canadian policy by donating money to environmental groups here. These arguments have appeared in publications such as the Vancouver Sun and Calgary Herald, and on Sun TV. Greenpeace has released research that points in a different direction, one that seems more logical. The Greenpeace report, “Who’s Holding Us Back?”, shows that multinational and U.S. corporations in the oil, mining, and chemical sectors, among others, have been spending money – a cool $3.5 billion per year – and using industry trade associations, think-tanks, lobbying, and revolving doors between government and industry to block action on climate change and influence resource policy in Canada and elsewhere. Need greater national control of oil sector Opponents of environmental initiatives point to recent protests against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to B.C.’s north coast. They say this opposition is part of a conspiracy by U.S. funders to ensure that oil keeps flowing to the U.S. and not to Asia. That the same people also oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, which would take bitumen from the tar sands to the U.S., doesn’t faze those who promote this twisted logic. If these conspiracy theorists were truly upset about U.S. influence on Canadian infrastructure and resource development, they would lobby for greater national control of the oil industry, much of which is owned by U.S. and Chinese corporations. They might also question U.S. industry and foundation funding for organizations such as Canada’s Fraser Institute, which has the same charitable status as the David Suzuki Foundation and other conservation groups and is thus governed by the same rules. The criticism of U.S. money going to Canadian non-profits is part of a recent spate of efforts to silence those who want to bring more balance to discussions about the fossil fuel industry and environmental issues. Sun Media, owned by media giant Quebecor, has been especially aggressive in its opposition to those who don’t go along with its pro-government, pro-industry way of thinking, with recent attacks on environmental groups and the CBC. In one of those “revolving door” scenarios that the Greenpeace research highlights, Kory Teneycke left his position as Prime Minister Stephen Harper​’s communications director to join Sun TV before its launch. Several reporters who were considered for positions at the TV channel have said that Teneycke told them part of their job would be to go after me. Sun Media has also campaigned to have the David Suzuki Foundation’s charitable status removed. Of course, one of Sun TV’s major personalities, Ezra Levant​, has strong ties to the Harper government. He also launched the “ethical oil” campaign, which was taken over by Alykhan Velshi​, who was recently hired as Stephen Harper’s planning director. I wish I had the kind of influence over public policy that anti-environmentalists and news media claim I have but, alas, I think Greenpeace is much closer to the mark in saying that corporate interests, including many foreign interests, wield more power. As for funding, just as we’re glad that Canadians donate money to important causes worldwide – from earthquake relief in Haiti to aid for famine victims in Africa – we’re pleased that people outside our borders understand the global importance of environmental protection in Canada. Funding from sources outside Canada ranges from 6 to 10 per cent Like many environmental organizations, the David Suzuki Foundation is able to do its work thanks to the many people who give us their time and money. Over half of our funding (55 per cent) comes in donations from about 28,000 individuals – more than 9,000 of whom give us a bit of money every month. Philanthropic foundations and businesses provide the rest. Our funding from sources in the U.S. and other countries ranges from six to 10 per cent per year. All must meet the requirements of our ethical gift acceptance policy. I encourage everyone to carefully consider the arguments on both sides. If you agree that Canadians should help slow rampant extraction and use of fossil fuels to protect the environment and human health, then please support our work and the work of similar organizations. And although we’re extremely grateful for all the support we get from Canadians, we’re happy to accept donations from people anywhere in the world who want to protect nature, and fend off its enemies. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation editorial and communications specialist Ian Hanington. 2011-11-30T18:04:05+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/u.s._and_canadian_tribal_leaders_draw_a_line_at_tar_sands http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/u.s._and_canadian_tribal_leaders_draw_a_line_at_tar_sands#When:18:01:28Z This week, tribal leaders are raising their voices loudly to oppose the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and tars sands development in Canada. Tomorrow, American Indian and Canadian First Nation leaders will announce their opposition to Keystone XL and point to ongoing concerns regarding the effects of the propose pipeline on tribal nations. They intend to bring this message to President Obama on Friday, December 2 as part of the White House Tribal Nations Conference. Meanwhile in Canada, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations (ACFN), directly affected by tar sands development in Alberta, will be sending a message to the tar sands oil company Shell. The ACFN says that Shell failed to meet agreements with their community to lessen the impacts of tarsands projects on their community. Tribal leaders are drawing a line against tar sands development and pipeline infrastructure. It is time for the U.S. and Canadian decision makers listen. This week, tribal leaders are raising their voices loudly to oppose the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and tars sands development in Canada. Tomorrow, American Indian and Canadian First Nation leaders will announce their opposition to Keystone XL and point to ongoing concerns regarding the effects of the propose pipeline on tribal nations. They intend to bring this message to President Obama on Friday, December 2 as part of the White House Tribal Nations Conference.  Meanwhile in Canada, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations (ACFN), directly affected by tar sands development in Alberta, will be sending a message to the tar sands oil company Shell.  The ACFN says that Shell failed to meet agreements with their community to lessen the impacts of tarsands projects on their community.  Tribal leaders are drawing a line against tar sands development and pipeline infrastructure.  It is time for the U.S. and Canadian decision makers listen.   In Washington D.C., President John Steele of the Oglala Sioux Nation in South Dakota will announce that his community is opposed to Keystone XL.  The Oglala Sioux Tribe’s water supply area and lands of the Great Sioux Nation are located directly in the path of the Keystone XL pipeline.  A pipeline spill to their water line would be devastating to their drinking water supply.  The Oglala Sioux’s concerns are also held by eight other tribes in South Dakota and North Dakota.  Additionally, the United Sioux Tribes of South Dakota representing 11 Sioux Tribes in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska have also expressed serious concerned that they were not adequately consulted for the Keystone XL process by the State Department. Tomorrow’s announcement is endorsed by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), representing the nation’s oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments.  The NCAI passed a resolution earlier this year against Keystone XL earlier this year. At tomorrow’s announcement, President Steele will be joined by other tribal leaders from the U.S. and Canada expressing the Keystone XL pipeline threatens water quality, public health, and cultural preservation in both the United States and Canada.  On Friday as part of the White House Tribal Nations Conference, tribal leaders intend to present the Mother Earth Accord which states “We urge President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to reject the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.”  Signatories to the Accord include American Indian tribes and Canadian First Nations. Meanwhile in Canada, Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) is speaking out today at the Shell Canada corporate headquarters in downtown Calgary. The ACFN has filed a lawsuit with Shell asserting it broke its agreement with the First Nation to lessen the impact of tars sands mines on their community.  Chief Adam said, “We’re drawing the line, and taking a strong stand against Shell. ACFN wants no further developments until Shell is brought to justice and our broader concerns about the cumulative impacts in the region are addressed.”  The ACFN has said that not only has Shell failed to meet its commitments to the tribe but also that Canadian governments have failed saying that “Shell cannot be trusted to monitor itself.” The message from these tribal leaders is clear: they are drawing a line at tar sands.  It is time the Obama administration heard their concerns about the impacts on local communities both from Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands development.  Tar sands oil brings significant risks to local communities, the environment, and particularly water supply.  The voices of these communities will only grow to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline and expanding tar sands development. 2011-11-30T18:01:28+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/alberta_innovates_report_shows_study_needed_to_assess_corrosivity_of_tar_sa http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/alberta_innovates_report_shows_study_needed_to_assess_corrosivity_of_tar_sa#When:15:50:57Z A report on pipeline corrosion released by Alberta Innovates recently evaluated evidence of diluted bitumen’s corrosivity relative to conventional crude. The Alberta Innovates report noted that there is no peer reviewed research on this issue, identified gaps in safety data kept by regulators, and found that many of the corrosive properties of diluted bitumen are shared by certain blends of very heavy Canadian crudes. However, the report went one step too far when it assumed that corrosive properties diluted bitumen shares with certain very heavy Canadian crudes do not present increased risks to pipelines. Like diluted bitumen, the production and export in pipelines of large volumes of heavy Canadian crudes is a relatively recent development which has not been accompanied by adequate due diligence on the part of regulators and the industry. The fact that pipelines are moving increasing volumes of unconventional crudes which share some of diluted bitumen’s corrosive characteristics only increases the urgency for appropriate scientific study. A report on pipeline corrosion released by Alberta Innovates recently evaluated evidence of diluted bitumen’s corrosivity relative to conventional crude. The Alberta Innovates report noted that there is no peer reviewed research on this issue, identified gaps in safety data kept by regulators, and found that many of the corrosive properties of diluted bitumen are shared by certain blends of very heavy Canadian crudes. However, the report went one step too far when it assumed that corrosive properties diluted bitumen shares with certain very heavy Canadian crudes do not present increased risks to pipelines. Like diluted bitumen, the production and export in pipelines of large volumes of heavy Canadian crudes is a relatively recent development which has not been accompanied by adequate due diligence on the part of regulators and the industry. The fact that pipelines are moving increasing volumes of unconventional crudes which share some of diluted bitumen’s corrosive characteristics only increases the urgency for appropriate scientific study. In the report Tar Sands Pipelines Safety Risks, NRDC compared diluted bitumen to the West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the benchmark crude of North America. The reason that NRDC chose WTI as a point of reference is that it is similar to the conventional crudes historically moved on the U.S. pipeline system. These conventional crudes are lighter and less viscous, and therefore can be transported at lower temperatures and pressures than thick tar sands crude. The Alberta Innovates report compared diluted bitumen with five blends of very heavy Canadian crude. These blends of heavy crude differ significantly from the lighter oil pipelines were designed for – even from conventional heavy crude. Like diluted bitumen, these heavy Canadian crudes require unconventional production methods, must be mixed with diluents to move in a pipeline and have been transported on some of the same pipelines which have shown signs of wear and tear in the United States. In many cases, these heavy Canadian crudes have to be upgraded into synthetic crude before being processed by conventional oil refineries. Simply stated, the blends of Canadian heavy crude that Alberta Innovates considered are far more similar to tar sands diluted bitumen than they are to the lighter crudes that historically have been moved by the onshore pipeline system. Also like tar sands diluted bitumen, the production and export of significant quantities of heavy Canadian crude on the U.S. pipeline system is a recent development. Combined exports of heavy crude and diluted bitumen have increased over four-fold over the last fifteen years, from less than a quarter million barrels per day (bpd) in 1995 to over a million bpd last year. This development has been accompanied by early warning signs. The pipelines moving the bulk of this crude in the United State’s upper Midwest spilled nearly three times as much crude per mile as the national average between 2007 and 2010. Enbridge’s line 6B, which spilled over 840,000 gallons of diluted bitumen in Michigan and on which hundreds of corrosion abnormalities have been identified, has been used to move large quantities of Canada’s heavy crude and diluted bitumen exports. The Alberta Innovates report also noted that large diameter pipelines in Alberta have rates of internal corrosion that are comparable to those in the United States. This is actually a sign of trouble, as the U.S. pipeline system is on average twice as old as the Alberta pipeline system. Because the risk of internal corrosion increases with pipeline age, the newer Alberta pipeline system should also have a significantly lower rate of internal corrosion. That it doesn’t is evidence of a potential problem. There is significant evidence that more study and enhanced safety standards are needed for the pipeline transport of viscous, unconventional crudes like diluted bitumen.  Alberta Innovates identifies some of these gaps and and urges Alberta's regulator, the Energy Resources Conservation Board, to start separating safety and operating statistics for pipelines that carry tar sands crude from those that ship conventional oil to allow better information gathering. NRDC agrees that this better collection of information is an important first step. 2011-11-29T15:50:57+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/why_transcanada_and_others_shouldnt_be_surprised_by_the_recent_keystone_xl http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/why_transcanada_and_others_shouldnt_be_surprised_by_the_recent_keystone_xl#When:16:56:34Z In 2008, the Canadian company TransCanada proposed a nearly 2,000 mile pipeline that would bisect the heartland of America in order to carry diluted bitumen, raw tar sands diluted with chemicals, to the Gulf Coast ports and refineries. It was a bold proposal, sold to the oil industry as a cheaper way to access the Gulf than the longer route through the Midwest and down from Cushing, Oklahoma. And the Gulf no doubt looked like the grand prize for an industry bullish on its future. If they could get their oil to Texas ports, it could go anywhere in the world. That was the grand plan. In 2008, the Canadian company TransCanada proposed a nearly 2,000 mile pipeline that would bisect the heartland of America in order to carry diluted bitumen, raw tar sands diluted with chemicals, to the Gulf Coast ports and refineries.  It was a bold proposal, sold to the oil industry as a cheaper way to access the Gulf than the longer route through the Midwest and down from Cushing, Oklahoma.  And the Gulf no doubt looked like the grand prize for an industry bullish on its future.  If they could get their oil to Texas ports, it could go anywhere in the world.  That was the grand plan. Three years later, the prospects for the pipeline are at best uncertain.  On November 1, the Nebraska Legislature began its special session to consider a bill that would give the Governor authority to stop oil pipelines from crossing its sensitive lands.  And on November 6, over 10,000 people from the U.S. and Canada encircled the White House asking the President to stand up to Big Oil and reject the pipeline.  Days later, the President and State Department announced they would take a harder look, especially at the route through Nebraska and its fragile Sandhills, but also at the climate and other environmental impacts posed by the pipeline and upstream extraction and downstream refining. So what happened?  How did this pipeline that was thought to be such a done deal that TransCanada bought and stacked pipe along the route go awry? It’s a long story and it started well before the events of the last several weeks. In 2008, TransCanada’s first pipeline, Keystone One, was approved by the Bush Administration.  Because it crossed an international border, it required a Presidential permit under Executive Order 13337  and was met with little objection by other Federal agencies involved in the process.  Few in policy circles knew about the tar sands and most of the focus at that time for those concerned about the tar sands was on keeping a brand new federal procurement law, Section 526, from being repealed.  The TransCanada Keystone One pipeline would carry tar sands crude from Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma, a huge oil terminal.   Then in 2009, right after the Obama Administration came into office, another pipeline review was completed and the Enbridge Alberta Clipper was granted its permit.  At this point, the pipeline capacity for tar sands oil surged from 800,000 barrels, mostly carried by an aging pipeline system, called the Enbridge Lakehead system, to two million barrels a day.  Canada was producing less than a million and a half barrels and a significant portion of that was being used in Canada.  In other words, there was already signficant tar sands pipeline overcapacity by 2009.  The fact that Keystone XL, a supersized pipeline (nearly the size of the other two combined), would add another nearly one million barrels a day meant that pipeline overcapacity would be that much greater.  That explains why Enbridge, TransCanada’s competitor, repeatedly tried to block the Keystone XL from going forward. What was clear then, as early as 2009, was that Keystone XL was not really about bringing additional oil into the U.S. – at least not for a decade or more – because Canada, in spite of the boom in the tar sands, could not produce it fast enough.  To survive, Keystone XL was going to have to divert oil from the Midwest pipelines – mainly from Enbridge – to fill its pipe to the Gulf.  In the Canadian National Energy Board hearings, TransCanada made it clear that they could get a bigger profit for the tar sands producers – to the tune of $4 billion a year – if they could take it out of the Midwest where it was backlogged (and where only a few refineries can refine it) and send it to the Gulf coast where it could get higher global prices.  By removing the glut, that $4 billion would effectively be coming out of the pockets of Midwest consumers. Fast forward to March of 2011 when a well known oil economist, Phil Verleger, would write an op-ed that undoubtedly ripped through the industry.  He said that the pipeline would not decrease the price of gas, as the oil lobby and a vocal group of anti-Obama Republicans claimed, it would increase it and increase it in a part of the country hardest hit by the recession.  The economist estimated that the cost would be 10-20 cents a gallon in the Midwest and would have a depressing effect on expenditures elsewhere in the economy.  He also asserted that the pipeline would serve mainly as an export pipeline to Asia and other foreign countries. All these arguments were to play a central role in the review of the pipeline and the growing public opposition to it.  But let’s go back to the beginning for now. In the spring of 2010, the State Department was in the midst of a controversial environmental review.  Thousands of citizens were sending comments into the State Department expressing concerns, especially those who lined the pipeline route.  But the State Department had picked the same contractor that had worked with TransCanada on Keystone One and had worked for Enbridge on the approval of the Alberta Clipper pipeline, Cardno-Entrix, to do the review.  It is possible that the contractor, which had been delegated the collection of the comments, did not give the State Department an adequate heads up that a huge controversy was brewing.  What is later to become the core of an Inspector General review, Cardno-Entrix listed TransCanada as a “major client” and there were other conflict of interest issues (they were working for multiple oil major companies with interests in the tar sands and the pipeline). This should have raised red flags for the supervising government agency.  But because the State Department did few environmental reviews, and usually delegated the oversight of them to junior foreign service officers who then moved on to other posts, they had little in house experience in executing NEPA and overseeing the process. In April, the State Department released what was widely viewed as an extremely flawed Draft Environmental Impact Statement.  Fifty members of Congress, all the major environmental groups and many regional groups, and 250 entrepreneurs (members of E2, a business advocacy association that partners with NRDC) sent letters raising questions about the review, especially about its disregard of the serious climate impacts of the pipeline.  In July, EPA added its voice, and raising similar concerns about climate impacts, sent a comment letter that gave the lowest possible rating to the draft.  At the same time, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Henry Waxman wrote a particularly critical comment letter. As skepticism was growing that the State Department could do an adequate review, in July of 2010 the Enbridge Lakehead pipeline exploded in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, spilling nearly a million gallons of tar sands sludge into the river and its tributaries.  Booms and skimmers were deployed but this heavy crude simply sank to the bottom where it couldn’t be cleaned up.  For months afterwards, images of fouled shorelines and sickened residents reminded the American public of the onshore risks of pipeline spills as the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was also unfolding. In spite of this rupture, in mid-October, the Secretary of State stated at an event in San Francisco that she was “inclined” to approve the pipeline, even as State was in the midst of conducting its environmental review.  That spurred a terse letter from eleven Senators, led by Senator Patrick Leahy, the lead appropriator for the State Department’s budget, who wrote asking their former colleague to answer a series of questions about the adequacy of the review.  By the end of the year, State had agreed to carry out a supplemental EIS and append studies on pipeline safety, climate impacts and oil supply scenarios ranging from no pipeline at all to multiple new pipelines.  The supplemental was hastily put together – again by the consultant Cardo-Entrix – and released in April of 2011.  EPA dug in again, did a detailed comment letter, and gave the review another failing grade.   Then, in July, there was another major pipeline spill, this time in the Yellowstone River in Montana.  While it was not a spill of tar sands oil, the pipeline carried tar sands oil.  The Kalamazoo River that had had the rupture a year earlier was still closed and clean up costs were north of $500 million.  By this time, Keystone One had had problems of its own, with pipeline spills at far greater frequencies than they had promised regulators (one "spill" was a geyser of oil that shot 60 feet into the air and was first reported by a nearby landowner, not by the TransCanada leak detection systems.) The final environmental impact statement, which followed a few months later in late August 2011, found – in almost a shocking display of dissonance with these events and the growing public and media attention – that there would be “no significant impact” from the pipeline.  Very short mention was made of these spills, even though Cardno -Entrix, the contractor for the EIS, was doing clean-up assessments for Enbridge in the Kalamazoo spill. And the review had failed to do a significant analysis of the pipeline safety issues in spite of the fact that that June, two months earlier, the administrator of the agency overseeing pipeline safety testified before Congress that there were no regulations that govern bitumen pipelines and that she could not go on the record stating that bitumen would behave the same as conventional oil in pipelines.  Organizations such as the Pipeline Safety Trust, which had partnered with NRDC earlier to issue a report raising safety concerns, also began to speak out more vocally about the risks. Adding to these concerns was the fact that the route of the pipeline would carve right through the Ogallala aquifer, one of our most important aquifers, and cross iconic rivers like the Yellowstone.  As tensions were rising in Nebraska, where the Ogallala comes both to the surface along the pipeline route in the famous Sandhills region and is at its deepest, TransCanada was digging in and making it clear that they would not move the route.  In October, they met with legislators for a four hour session where they made it clear that the refineries couldn’t wait for another environmental review and Nebraska was just going to have to live with the route.  That the Republican governor asked the State Department to move the route mattered little. It would go forward, like it or not.    At this point, Americans from all walks of life were making it clear that they opposed the Keystone XL pipeline.  Organizations such as the National Farmers Union, Transport Workers Union, Amalgamated Transit Union, National Congress of the American Indians, League of Women Voters, mayors, scientists, landowners, dozens of members of Congress and communities that would be hit hardest by refinery pollution in Texas were all weighing in against the pipeline.  And the major environmental organizations had made the campaign to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and the expansion of the tar sands a top priority. In late summer, Bill McKibben and his organization TarSandsAction orchestrated "waves" of arrests, ultimately totalling over 1250 people, in front of the White House.  The arrests included many public figures but also many directly affected by extraction, piping, or refining tar sands oil.  A substantial number of those arrested had been moved by James Hansen's statements that expansion of the tar sands was "game over" for the climate.  Following on the heels of the arrests, nine Nobel Laureates wrote the President in support of the protests and asking him to reject the pipeline. And Robert Redford, a long-tim trustee of NRDC, launched one of the first New York Times video op-ed with a three minute piece urging rejection of the pipeline. Wherever the President traveled in the fall, he was met by protesters asking him to stand firm against Big Oil and say no to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Also in September and October, thousands of people flooded public hearings held by the State Department along the pipeline route and in Washington D.C.  and, in the largest environmental protest since the 1970s, again organized by McKibben's TarSandsAction, over 10,000 people encircled the White House to send the President the message that they would stand with him in rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. There are many more stories, about the revelations that TransCanada had a cozy relationship with officials in the State Department and with the contractor Cardno-Entrix that have led to an Inspector General investigation at the State Department, and about the dearth of reflection of public concerns in the review, that help explain why there was little choice but to restart the review process and to look for alternative routes for the pipeline. But for now, the President and State Department’s decision to do additional review begins to rectify what was far from a political decision.  It would have been one – and a potentially catastrophic one for the American public – had the Secretary of State or the President made a decision to permit the pipeline given the history of the pipeline review and public concern.  In fact, that is the government’s duty under the Executive Order - to determine that the pipeline is in the national interest (apart from the industry interests) – before approving its permit. That there was surprise expressed by TransCanada and some observers in Canada and the U.S. shows that they either arrogantly assumed they would get this pipeline permit in spite of the American public’s concerns or that they were genuinely not paying attention.  Their attempt to use jobs as a cynical ploy to counter growing sentiment against the pipeline also began to fall apart, with TransCanada admitting that the 20,000 pipeline jobs were more likely to be in the hundreds after a few thousand temporary jobs building the pipeline had run their course, and with an independent jobs report finding that the pipeline could be a job killer by suppressing the Midwest economy and green jobs.  And their arguments that the pipeline would provide energy security were also unraveling.  We may never know why TransCanada so misjudged the response of the American public, but for now, the Administration put the interests of that public ahead of the interests of TransCanada and committed to taking a harder look.  Some in industry see this delay as an opportunity to push other proposals forward. Enbridge – TransCanada’s rival – announced its purchase of the Seaway pipeline to reverse oil flow from Texas to the Midwest in order to take tar sands oil from the Midwest down to the Gulf.  And just as we expected, the price of oil in the Midwest increased as a result of this announcement, consistent with our argument that these pipelines to the Gulf will increase the price of oil to consumers in the Midwest and that this oil is destined in part for foreign markets, putting a lie to the brash energy security claims of tar sands promoters.  See my colleague, Danielle Droitsch’s blog here for more on this story. That there will be more twists and turns in this story is a certainty - like the Enbridge moves this week - but at the end I believe it is likely that the Keystone XL will either fail on its own accord or be rejected.  Even the delay has dealt a major blow to a huge priority project for the oil industry, bent on expanding the tar sands and moving the dirtiest oil on the planet to international markets. Will Keystone XL's demise stop the tar sands from expanding?  Maybe yes, maybe no. But today it is a serious question.  And every pipeline proposal, whether that's Enbridge's Gateway, Seaway or Wrangler or a shortened TransCanada's Keystone XL, will be met with much more scrutiny going forward. One other thing is for sure  - a pipeline that was once thought to be a done deal could become a pipedream. And that's something big. 2011-11-17T16:56:34+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_decision_a_reminder_the_customer_is_always_right http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_decision_a_reminder_the_customer_is_always_right#When:16:07:24Z When the dust settles on the U.S. State Department announcement that it is delaying making a decision on the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, it will be interesting to see what — if anything — governments and industry north of the border have learned from the opposition to the pipeline and the oilsands expansion that would be required to fill it. A remarkable couple of years have spawned hundreds of demonstrations, protests and arrests and have united opposition from landowners, First Nations and environmental organizations from across the continent. Together, these actions and events show that the social license of the oilsands industry is tenuous, and that opposition is spreading. When the dust settles on the U.S. State Department announcement that it is delaying making a decision on the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, it will be interesting to see what — if anything — governments and industry north of the border have learned from the opposition to the pipeline and the oilsands expansion that would be required to fill it. A remarkable couple of years have spawned hundreds of demonstrations, protests and arrests and have united opposition from landowners, First Nations and environmental organizations from across the continent. Together, these actions and events show that the social license of the oilsands industry is tenuous, and that opposition is spreading. Will the Keystone decision be the wake up call government needs to improve oilsands regulation?Will the negative reception of Keystone XL in the U.S. drive a new conversation within the oilsands industry and the governments of Alberta and Canada about the legitimate environmental concerns that formed the root of the opposition? Keep reading on the Pembina Institute blog site 2011-11-17T16:07:24+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_nebraska_protects_the_sandhills_now_lets_pro http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_nebraska_protects_the_sandhills_now_lets_pro#When:18:16:13Z There were new developments last night in the Keystone XL pipeline campaign with TransCanada giving in to the concerns of the people of Nebraska and conceding to reroute the pipeline away from the Nebraska Sandhills. This is a victory for the people of Nebraska who are so deeply concerned about the health of their cattle, farms, and children. It is amazing what a company can do when the American people tell them “no”. Just a short while ago, TransCanada was threatening to sue Nebraska over the possible rerouting of the pipeline. Now we need TransCanada to listen to the American people tell them “no” to the pipeline as a whole. What Nebraska will see is that there is not safe route for a leaky tar sands pipeline through any of their farms and communities. And what the nation knows is that we can’t fight climate change and build yet another tar sands oil pipeline. There were new developments last night in the Keystone XL pipeline campaign with TransCanada giving in to the concerns of the people of Nebraska and conceding to reroute the pipeline away from the Nebraska Sandhills. This is a victory for the people of Nebraska who are so deeply concerned about the health of their cattle, farms, and children. It is amazing what a company can do when the American people tell them “no”. Just a short while ago, TransCanada was threatening to sue Nebraska over the possible rerouting of the pipeline. Now we need TransCanada to listen to the American people tell them “no” to the pipeline as a whole. What Nebraska will see is that there is not safe route for a leaky tar sands pipeline through any of their farms and communities. And what the nation knows is that we can’t fight climate change and build yet another tar sands oil pipeline. Nebraska is in the middle of a special legislative session to give the people the authority to determine where this pipeline could go in the state. Any environmental review of alternative routes, including the no route option, in Nebraska will feed into the fresh review that we have been promised at the federal level. The Nebraska review will look at Nebraska’s interests in clean water and healthy farmland. The federal review will look at the nation’s interest in clean water, combating climate change and other environmental concerns. Read more from our partners at Bold Nebraska:  http://boldnebraska.org/langmeier-out-dubas-in And for all those in Nebraska whose farms and ranches are now safe from the terror of an oil spill – well done and keep your voices raised for your neighbors and to help protect us all from climate change. 2011-11-15T18:16:13+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/as_the_keystone_xl_pipeline_loses_its_footing_other_pipelines_face_even_gre http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/as_the_keystone_xl_pipeline_loses_its_footing_other_pipelines_face_even_gre#When:18:02:26Z Yesterday’s announcement by the U.S. State Department to delay the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline process into 2013 will quite possibly spell a “fatal blow” to the project. In reacting to yesterday’s announcement, the Canadian government promised they would immediately pursue Plan B: new pipelines from Alberta to the Canadian west coast in British Columbia. But, in fact, significant hurdles must be overcome to build another tar sands pipeline that may be even greater than what TransCanada faced with Keystone XL. Yesterday’s announcement by the U.S. State Department to delay the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline process into 2013 will quite possibly spell a “fatal blow” to the project. In reacting to yesterday’s announcement, the Canadian government promised they would immediately pursue Plan B: new pipelines from Alberta to the Canadian west coast in British Columbia.  But, in fact, significant hurdles must be overcome to build another tar sands pipeline that may be even greater than what TransCanada faced with Keystone XL. Canadian officials are already turning their sights to other alternative pipelines because they know the delay to Keystone XL could result in an end to the project.  The Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty acknowledged the delay to the Keystone XL process is effectively a rejection of the pipeline. Investors like BMO Capital Markets agree saying that a delay to Keystone XL to after the 2012 election “may very well be the same thing as effectively rejecting XL.” TransCanada itself has confirmed that a delay could mean they would lose some refinery customers.  In a sworn statement filed with the U.S. District Court in Nebraska this week, TransCanada acknowledged their contracts with refineries were fundamental to the financial underpinnings of the project. Separately, they have acknowledged, “some Gulf Coats refiners have contracts that expire in 2012 and 2013.” The implications are huge for the financial investment needed for this project. Canada’s Globe and Mail reports that Keystone XL shippers can bail from their contractual agreement with TransCanada if by the end of 2011, “TransCanada cannot prove it will have oil flowing through Keystone XL by December 1, 2013…”  Given the construction of the pipeline will take two years and there are many more months of study needed on possible alternative routes before there is any chance of an approval, there is a good likelihood TransCanada’s customers won’t wait. But as the rumors of an impending delay surfaced, Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver used tough talk proclaiming, “What will happen if there wasn’t approval [of Keystone XL] – and we think there will be – is that we’ll simply have to intensify our efforts to sell the oil elsewhere.” Translation?  We’ll pursue Plan B and send our oil to China.  Simple enough? Not at all.  As one commentator from Canada’s more conservative paper said, “There will be nothing simple about getting oil to China.”  Keep in mind that tar sands are land-locked and the U.S. has created nearly all the demand for this product.  Keystone XL has been the overwhelming choice by the tar sands industry for their expansion plans because it would create a super-highway from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast, an international port.  The Keystone XL delay “chokes production growth in the oil sands because the sector has no backup plan on the same scale and time line.”  In fact, industry was mostly relying on Plan A – Keystone XL. Canada’s oil patch has viewed Keystone XL to be “critical to handle the growth in crude supply” according to an October 2011 report by Purvin & Gertz, an international energy consulting firm.  To expand tar sands, they said, more pipeline projects were “urgently needed” to meet industry’s expansion plans. So, what is Plan B?  The Canadian government will likely set their sights on the proposed Enbridge Gateway tar sands pipeline, a 620-mile (1000-kilometer) long pipeline from Alberta to the Canadian west Coast.  The fight against this pipeline is heating up rapidly and is bound to be the next battleground for tar sands activists.  Chances this pipeline will be approved anytime soon are slim. Canada’s First Nations have constitutionally protected treaty rights and unsettled land claims enabling them to block and significantly delay the pipeline.  Watch Robert Mark, an investor specialist, with MacDougall, MacDougall & Mactier saying there are “a lot more hoops” to proceed with the Gateway pipeline than Keystone XL. Other energy analysts have said much of the same thing.   Robert Campbell, a Reuters market analyst, says Canada’s claim they will find other pipeline avenues is hollow. “If anything, a pipeline from Alberta across the mountainous province of British Columbia is likely to face more scrutiny from environmental groups than Keystone XL.” Another Plan B alternate pipeline proposed by Kinder Morgan involves the expansion of one of their pipelines and an additional new pipeline. However, both the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines face a potential deal breaker: a permanent ban on crude oil tankers on Canada’s Western coast.  Pipeline companies will need these tankers to get their product to other markets. Over 130 First Nations groups in Western Canada have publicly stated their opposition to tankers and tar sands pipelines.  Of these Nations, 70 have declared outright bans on the transport of tar sands crude through their traditional territories, whether by tanker or pipeline. Canada’s federal opposition parties have signaled their support for a permanent tanker ban. And dozens of businesses and the majority of British Columbians support a ban. You might say the tar sands industry has their hands full. Naomi Klein said it best this past Sunday when over 10,000 people joined to send a message to President Obama to deny the pipeline.  She said, “So, as you surround the White House today, I want you to remember that we don’t just have the White House surrounded, we’ve got the tar sands surrounded!”  The fight against these tar sands pipelines is a fight against dirty oil and a fight for breaking our dependence on oil and promoting a clean energy economy.  Investors are taking note that the fight against Keystone is more than a pipeline fight.  It is a “backlash” against tar sands  – an opposition that is the new normal as the tar sands industry pursues its expansion.  In the end, tar sands development carries too high a price tag for water and land protection, public safety, and the protection of our climate. 2011-11-11T18:02:26+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/hope_change_are_real_ive_seen_it http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/hope_change_are_real_ive_seen_it#When:18:01:16Z Some people say I have a gambling problem. No, its not that I go and lose hundreds of dollars in casinos, but rather I take too many lofty risks based mostly on hope. An example of this is when I dropped out of school in 2007 to go and work for then Senator Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign. As an African-American male, leaving behind a full scholarship at one of America’s most prestigious private universities wasn’t received well by anyone. In fact, there was even some campaign staff that didn’t think it was a good idea. But I took a risk because for the first time ever, I felt I could make a difference because a politician believed in my generation and me. Some people say I have a gambling problem. No, its not that I go and lose hundreds of dollars in casinos, but rather I take too many lofty risks based mostly on hope. An example of this is when I dropped out of school in 2007 to go and work for then Senator Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign. As an African-American male, leaving behind a full scholarship at one of America’s most prestigious private universities wasn’t received well by anyone. In fact, there was even some campaign staff that didn’t think it was a good idea. But I took a risk because for the first time ever, I felt I could make a difference because a politician believed in my generation and me. Fast-forward four years later, and many young people have started to wonder if President Obama will keep true to candidate Obama promises and rhetoric. Admittedly, I was one of those critics, but after yesterday’s State Department decision to reassess the Keystone XL pipeline; I feel the tide shifting dramatically. When I started at the Sierra Club in May, I was told about this lofty goal to organize young people to try and stop this pipeline and I thought "that will be extremely difficult" before the end of year. Nonetheless, in August, the Sierra Student Coalition gathered its top 50 youth leaders in St. Louis, MO to talk about our work for the upcoming semester, and there our “Stop Keystone” youth campaign was launched. Over the course of the past few months, young people participated in both the official State Department public comments process, as well as used untraditional methods to bring attention to President Obama. In St. Louis, students from Washington University organized and raised grassroots dollars to attend an Obama Campaign fundraiser, where they asked the President directly about the pipeline. At the University of Colorado, students also organized to ask the President about the issue during a speech about recent student loan assistance. These actions coincided with a campaign from the youth climate movement entitled “100 Actions for 100% Clean Energy” where young people organized over 100 actions all across the nation to stop dirty energy and transition their universities to 100% clean energy. In fact, just two weeks ago our culminating event garnered national press attention as we met with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Jon Carson and Ronnie Cho from the White House Office of Public Engagement about the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as other environmental issues. And just last week, we saw over 12,000 people gather to encircle the White House and show the President we are here ready to support his decision to stop the pipeline. I mention all of the efforts because yesterday the environmental movement witnessed and realized grassroots organizing works. Our young people saw democracy work for the 99%. I regained my confidence in President Obama. These are not just dismissible observations, but for me, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” in a long time. Quentin James is the National Director of the Sierra Student Coalition and National Board Member for the NAACP, where he is the Vice Chair of the National Climate & Environmental Justice Committee.  Quentin also served as the Deputy Youth Vote Director for Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign in Ohio. 2011-11-11T18:01:16+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/obama_administration_rejects_transcanada_keystone_xl_plan http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/obama_administration_rejects_transcanada_keystone_xl_plan#When:22:44:40Z A drab State Department media note called “Keystone XL Pipeline Review Process: Decision to Seek Additional Information,” issued late afternoon before a three day weekend, has unleashed celebratory fireworks. A drab State Department media note called “Keystone XL Pipeline Review Process: Decision to Seek Additional Information,” issued late afternoon before a three day weekend, has unleashed celebratory fireworks. Robert Redford was quick out of the box with a thank you video addressed to President Obama that said “thank you for standing up to Big Oil. Thank you for standing up for all of us.” Oil Change's Steve Kretzmann went for the clever one-liner, saying that the President has chosen the “many over the money,” referring to  thousands of people who have protested the tar sands pipeline versus the deep pockets of Big Oil. Retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson weighed in saying he is “pleased to see that the Administration has had the good sense to reject TransCanada’s current plan” because the pipeline “would set back our renewable energy efforts for at least two decades, and do absolutely nothing to move us off Middle East oil, to our enemies’ delight.” Climate leader Bill McKibben wrote supporters simply: “We won. You won.” Nebraskan rancher Randy Thompson said that “future generations will thank the President and hopefully will thank our state senators if they do the job they were elected to do for citizens not big corporations." And he’s a Republican. This is not hype. Today’s announcement is a bombshell for many reasons. Although technically this is a do-over (that’s a technical term, right?), it’s pretty obvious that Keystone XL as we know it is dead.  By 2013, when the new review might conclude, oil demand will have decreased and people will be no less vigilant. No one expected we could beat this back. TransCanada supposedly had jobs, energy security, the entire oil industry, and the US State Dept on its side. Even within groups like NRDC and Sierra Club, senior observers advised against taking this fight on. When we started, no one had ever heard of tar sands. And no one though anything so awful could come from Canada. This decision will send shock waves through the tar sands industry. which now must realize it cannot continue business as usual. It must reform, and it must end its reckless expansion. This is a rebound for an environmental movement that has had little to cheer and lots to mourn. It’s a signal to industry: Change or Die. Cause we’re not going away. 2011-11-10T22:44:40+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/the_peoples_voice_wins_the_day_on_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/the_peoples_voice_wins_the_day_on_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline#When:22:04:26Z Today, the Obama Administration through the State Department announced a new environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that is likely to last through early 2013. This is a tremendous victory in a campaign that has pitted people from all walks of life against dirty tar sands. By calling for a new environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama is displaying leadership and a continued strong commitment to protections for land, air, water, climate and public health. He heard Nebraskans, Texans, Montanans and others ask for protection of their land and water. He heard masses of students, teachers, faith leaders and others ask for a strong stance against climate change. The President is doing what is in the interest of the American people and showing leadership on climate and energy at home and abroad. Today, the Obama Administration through the State Department announced a new environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that is likely to last through early 2013. This is a tremendous victory in a campaign that has pitted people from all walks of life against dirty tar sands. By calling for a new environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama is displaying leadership and a continued strong commitment to protections for land, air, water, climate and public health. He heard Nebraskans, Texans, Montanans and others ask for protection of their land and water.  He heard masses of students, teachers, faith leaders and others ask for a strong stance against climate change. The President is doing what is in the interest of the American people and showing leadership on climate and energy at home and abroad. Had the Keystone XL pipeline been approved by the end of the year, it would have carried tar sands, the dirtiest oil on the planet, through the heartland of America for likely export. It would also have signaled to Big Oil that expansion of the tar sands could proceed. The President already made clear that he is listening to the concerns of Nebraskans as they hold a special legislative session called by Republican Governor Heineman to take ownership of the siting of pipelines across their lands. Three to one, Nebraskans oppose the current proposed route across the Ogallala Aquifer. And over the last few months, we have witnessed historic numbers of people willing to risk arrest, willing to come to Washington to rally, and willing to reach out at campaign offices and events to send a clear message that the Keystone XL pipeline takes us backward on dirty energy at a time we need to be doing all we can to fight the very real threat to our country of climate change. This announcement cuts short the State Department’s arbitrary deadline for a decision by the end of the year. By moving away from the flawed route, the Administration essentially acknowledges that there have been problems with the State Department review process to date, showing that they do indeed stand by their commitment to transparent and participatory government. It is critical that this new review avoid the conflicts of interest of the past. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration to make sure that the review is as thorough as possible. A fresh review provides the Administration the time to get this decision right and to gather information about the ways in which this tar sands pipeline would hurt our health, water, farms and climate. With this information in hand, the only possible decision will be to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.  The American people asked for Presidential leadership and they got it. 2011-11-10T22:04:26+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/more_than_10000_people_encircle_the_white_house_asking_the_president_to_say http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/more_than_10000_people_encircle_the_white_house_asking_the_president_to_say#When:23:12:49Z One year from the Presidential election, over 10,000 citizens encircled the mile and a quarter circumference of the White House three times around with lots of people to spare. They had come from all parts of the country, many from swing states wearing Obama buttons next to their Stop Keystone XL buttons. They were all ages, from kids in strollers to seniors, all participating in the chants and linking arms along the line of people that stretched as far as the eye could see. My kids carried hand-made signs that read “This is my future” with pictures of the pipeline contrasted with windmills. Cars along the perimeter of the White House honked their horns in support. At one point, a line guard said “we expected 5,000, we’ve been told we have 12,000 here and that we have surrounded the White House.” Huge cheers went up. One year from the Presidential election, over 10,000 citizens encircled the mile and a quarter circumference of the White House three times around with lots of people to spare.  They had come from all parts of the country, many from swing states wearing Obama buttons next to their Stop Keystone XL buttons.  They were all ages, from kids in strollers to seniors, all participating in the chants and linking arms along the line of people that stretched as far as the eye could see.  My kids carried hand-made signs that read “This is my future” with pictures of the pipeline contrasted with windmills. Cars along the perimeter of the White House honked their horns in support.  At one point, a line guard said “we expected 5,000, we’ve been told we have 12,000 here and that we have surrounded the White House.”  Huge cheers went up.   An hour or so earlier, the event began with a big gathering in Lafayette Park, across from the White House.  Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org and TarSandsAction, who organized the event and did a brilliant job weaving the day together, started by asking the President to honor the commitments he made to tackle climate change.  Jestingly he said, “Where is the President?  No more of the stunt double in the White House.  We want the real thing”, recalling the words of the President who promised to “end the tyranny of oil”. John Adams, who co-founded NRDC, came back to the White House to exercise some of the advocacy the President had spoken of when awarding John the Medal of Freedom earlier in the year.  He asked where do the energy companies stop – citing deepwater drilling in the Arctic and the Gulf, mountain top removal, and fracking as well as digging up the vast Boreal forest of Canada for tar sands.  He called the thousand plus people who had been arrested in August heros for standing up and taking us from the deep dependence on fossil fuels into climate sanity. Along similar lines,  Mark Ruffalo, the Academy Award winning producer of the movie Gasland, said we have entered the era of extreme energy and finished with “we want the sunlight revolution to begin”.   Naomi Klein, the Canadian author and activist, came out swinging, “We are so over the environmental movement versus the labor movement. We aren't killing jobs. It’s about reinventing the world economy from the ground up.” She also spoke about Canada’s threats to send oil to Asia if they don’t get the Keystone XL pipeline, saying that they’d have to do it through British Columbia, her home, and that there was no way that was going to happen.  So, she concluded, “We don't just have the White House surrounded. We have the Tar Sands surrounded!"  Roger Touissant, the head of the Transit Workers of America, also addressed the jobs issue saying, “We want jobs not lies.  We want jobs but not as gravediggers for the planet”.   These are just snipets of so many powerful words that were echoed back by an exuberant crowd. In August, when I witnessed the two weeks of rolling arrests, I felt the power of a movement awakening. Today was a day to celebrate a movement in full swing.  Arguments for the pipeline seemed to pale in comparison to the message that people were carrying directly to their President:  We want a future of clean energy, not dirty energy.  We want you to lead the way.  We have hope that you will make the right decision and be true to your base. No matter how many press stories frame this as a jobs versus environment, or energy security versus environment story – as NPR did in their very disappointing interview with Richard Harris this morning – the speakers and the people consistently challenged this narrow view.   As Bill McKibben rightly pointed out, the only study not paid for by the oil industry found that the pipeline would in fact kill more jobs than it would create.   More and more unions are joining the anti-pipeline movement, as the Domestic Workers did this week. And on energy security, it is absurd to argue that this pipeline provides energy security when it is clear that the pipeline would be a conduit for dirty oil, strip mined from the home of Canada’s First Nation people and then sent straight across the heartland of America in the straightest possible line to the Gulf of Mexico, where it could then be shipped anywhere in the world. Well, the people aren’t buying their jobs and energy security arguments. And the increasingly desperate rhetoric of TransCanada proves that they know it. I’m with John Adams who said it’s a reawakening of the environmental movement and one of the best days he’s had over his over fifty years as an environmental leader.  And I’m with the Hip Hop Caucus leader who said this was our 21st Century lunch counter.  And I’m with Bill McKibben who said let’s forget about that red state versus blue state thing.  It's like the last time a big asteroid hit the planet, but now the asteroid is us. Today was a good day to feel the power of the people. 2011-11-06T23:12:49+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/how_to_buy_a_pipeline_buy_congress http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/how_to_buy_a_pipeline_buy_congress#When:23:17:16Z As thousands gather around the White House tomorrow to urge President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, let’s take a minute to look at some of the ways the project has garnered political support so far. As thousands gather around the White House tomorrow to urge President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, let’s take a minute to look at some of the ways the project has garnered political support so far. Because in the end this is a political decision. A yes indicates support for Big Oil and the dirty energy status quo and a no supports the clean energy future we so desperately need to fast track. The first card you play is the Energy Security Card. National security’s always a good one to pull out of the hat. It lends the air of patriotic righteousness to your project that generations of military service might endow to a family. It is as if you’re just in it for the good of the nation and someone’s gotta do it. The fallacy in that argument is no better exposed than when genuine military brass go to the trouble of publishing a report that argues that genuine energy security is only achieved through a reduction in oil demand not a continuation of business as usual. Or when one of General Petraeus’ top aides while in Iraq comes out directly against the project stating that it would “comfort our enemies”.  Given the choice, who would you trust on security, Big Oil? So once the Energy Security Card has been played the next card is the Jobs Card. You hire some little known outfit in Texas to write up an economic analysis of your project using a proprietary model that no other economist can penetrate that makes your jobs numbers look big, and I mean Texas Big. It’s a shame though when some economists at Cornell University, who actually know what they’re talking about, go and blow holes in your analysis the size of, well Texas. So when it’s all going west in a handcart, your credibility is seeping away, and citizens are starting to really kick up a stink, there’s always a fall back you can use that is guaranteed to get results. Get a bill passed in the House of Representatives. A slam dunk when you own most of them. This is what happened in late July when a bill passed the House (279-147) directing the President to expedite approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. According to figures we have compiled at DirtyEnergyMoney.org , representatives who voted for the bill were in receipt of NINE times more campaign money from the oil, gas and coal industries during the period of this Congress than those that voted against it. They’d received over $5 million from companies in those sectors in the past less than two years. The average ‘Yay’ voter received 3.8 times more of this dirty energy money than the average ‘Nay’ voter. The bill passed the House but failed to make it into the Senate. This is exactly the kind of Washington politics that President Obama promised would be a thing of the past in his presidency. It’s now time for him to live up to that promise by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. 2011-11-05T23:17:16+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/redford_opposes_keystone_xl_in_video_oped http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/redford_opposes_keystone_xl_in_video_oped#When:16:11:34Z The New York Times published a poignant “video op-ed” from Robert Redford and NRDC urging President Obama to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. This well-crafted and powerful 3-minute clip was specifically requested by the Times and is currently running on the homepage and opinion homepage of NYTimes.com. 2011-11-01T16:11:34+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/approval_wont_put_keystone_xl_in_the_rear_view_mirror http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/approval_wont_put_keystone_xl_in_the_rear_view_mirror#When:20:55:33Z Today, a groundbreaking opinion piece was published in The Hill. Titled “Tar sands pipeline will comfort our enemies,” it is a scathing indictment of the Keystone XL pipeline’s geopolitical impact by someone who knows. Retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson served as the Chief Logistician in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has seen first hand how oil dependence leads directly to the death of American soldiers. Today, a groundbreaking opinion piece was published in The Hill. Titled “Tar sands pipeline will comfort our enemies,” it is a scathing indictment of the Keystone XL pipeline’s geopolitical impact by someone who knows. Retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson served as the Chief Logistician in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has seen first hand how oil dependence leads directly to the death of American soldiers. General Anderson writes that the “pipeline would…set back our renewable energy efforts for at least two decades, much to our enemies’ delight.” I have written before that the Keystone XL pipeline is a dirty and dangerous step backward. Dirty for the planet, because of the huge carbon emissions from tar sands oil production. Dangerous for local communities, like First Nations in Alberta and ranchers on the Ogallala aquifer.  Backward because it locks America in to decades of the dirtiest oil production on earth. Now we can update the summary of this pipeline:  Dirty, dangerous, backward and a delight to our enemies. Yet, there are still indications that the Administration might allow a State Dept deputy to approve this mega-project, as was the case with previous pipelines.  If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes that she can delegate this decision to a career bureaucrat and move on, she is fantasizing.  In fact, her legacy is threatened by the cronyism and conflict of interest in the handling of this process to date. Let’s do a little thought experiment to see how the decision might play out politically in 2012. Option 1 - Pipeline Rejection. If the pipeline is rejected outright, it will electrify Barack Obama supporters, as they see him stand up to Big Oil in a way he didn’t stand up to Big Banks. Obama donors would be thrilled, and young voters would be freed up to work for the President’s re-election instead of spending their time protesting the pipeline. It would also send much needed shock waves through a complacent Canadian tar sands industry, which would have to accept that fundamental reform is necessary and reckless expansion must be curtailed. Sure, fossil fuel interests would howl in anger, but the Fred Uptons of the world will attack Barack Obama viciously no matter what he does. Option 2 - Pipeline Delay. Common sense dictates that the Administration, at a minimum, call for a new environmental review, including pipeline safety and alternative routes. If that happens, the oil industry and most Republicans will criticize the President for delay, no matter how justified. Environmentalists will welcome the delay and seize the opportunity to continue pressing to stop the pipeline.  Option 3 - Pipeline Approval. If the pipeline receives an early approval by the Administration (the earliest possible approval being around Dec 10 or so), this issue will not go away. There will be eminent domain lawsuits by conservative landowners in the heartland.  There will be blockades and other civil disobedience by celebrities and climate kids. There will be more calls by Senators for investigations into the State Dept’s conflict of interest and bias. The friction between President Obama and his supporters will continue and increase deep into the election season. Approving this permit might delight our enemies, but it will not put the pipeline in the rear view mirror. 2011-10-25T20:55:33+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/old_pipeline_new_risks http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/old_pipeline_new_risks#When:00:56:02Z Those fortunate enough to travel through the Straits of Mackinac have experienced the beauty of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron emerging as one as you pass through the gateway of mountainous sand dunes in the Lower Peninsula to steep cliffs and adventure in the Upper Peninsula. Those fortunate enough to travel through the Straits of Mackinac have experienced the beauty of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron emerging as one as you pass through the gateway of mountainous sand dunes in the Lower Peninsula to steep cliffs and adventure in the Upper Peninsula. But one aspect of the Straits of Mackinac that I’m sure you’re unaware of is the presence of a 20 million gallon a day oil pipeline running right under our two Great Lakes. Sitting just below the surface of our waterway is Line 5 of Enbridge’s Lakehead system, which connects the Alberta tar sands region to refineries here in Michigan and the Midwest. This pipeline is almost 60 years old, and Enbridge has plans to expand it without replacing it! This expansion is part of a larger strategy to deliver Alberta tar sands oil to the east coast for export. If the company Enbridge sounds familiar to you, that’s for good reason. Last July, Enbridge was the pipeline operator that spilled nearly 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River watershed. This spill went unnoticed, by Enbridge, for nearly 13 hours before a local utility brought the devastating incident to their attention. Fifteen months later, the impacted sections of the Kalamazoo River remain closed to the public as air and water monitoring continues along with the clean-up of submerged oil. Imagine how an oil spill and closure like that would impact our already suffering economy, fragile ecosystem and the billions of dollars we have invested into restoring and protecting our Great Lakes. Adding to the concern and risk is how this industry is regulated, or lack thereof.  Enbridge is not required to disclose to federal regulators when product in that pipeline changes. This means that Line 5 could be transporting the more corrosive, toxic and unstable raw tar sands crude at any time without notifying anyone of the change. One Year Later, Michigan Tar Sands Oil Spill - Ceresco Dam Tar sands oil in the Kalamazoo River, one year later. To date, Enbridge denies that the raw form of tar sands oil travels through Line 5, known as diluted bitumen. But disclosure of when product changes is not required by the federal oversight agency, Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, because they still have not updated rules and regulations around this new product. In their eyes, crude is crude. Ask anyone from the Kalamazoo River area if they think crude is crude. With the Kalamazoo River oil spill this past July, Enbridge and EPA officials did not learn quick enough that dealing with a tar sands oil spill is much more difficult than dealing with a conventional oil spill. Simply put, conventional clean-up techniques do not work because tar sands oil sinks in water, rather than floats, so the EPA and Enbridge are writing the book on how to clean up tar sands oil as they go along. Given that pipeline operators and oversight agencies admit that they do not know how to properly respond to a tar sands oil spill, I would hope that Congress and the agencies responsible for pipeline safety would block future projects until proper safeguards are in place to protect our communities and natural resources from another disaster. To learn more about ways you can help prevent expansion of tar sands pipelines and protect wildlife, please visit National Wildlife Federation Action Fund. 2011-10-25T00:56:02+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/conflict_of_interest_cronyism_revealed_as_details_leak_on_transcanadas_keys http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/conflict_of_interest_cronyism_revealed_as_details_leak_on_transcanadas_keys#When:01:58:18Z Key documents have recently come to light, exposed by a Friends of the Earth "Freedom of Information Act" request. The documents paint a disturbing picture of negligent mismanagement by the State Department and TransCanada's successful efforts to manipulate any attempts to objectively review the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Key documents have recently come to light, exposed by a Friends of the Earth "Freedom of Information Act" request. The documents paint a disturbing picture of negligent mismanagement by the State Department and TransCanada's successful efforts to manipulate any attempts to objectively review the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This week the New York Times went public with the story revealing that the State Department "flouted the intent of federal law" in hiring a major client of TransCanada, Cardno Entrix to oversee the third-party environmental assessment of the pipeline. Voicing their dismay and concern, Senators Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, and Ron Wyden sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the conflict of interests with TransCanada and a contractor. From the letter (PDF):     On October 7, 2011, the New York Times reported that TransCanada was permitted by the Department of State to screen possible contractors and, for all intents and purposes, to select the one that would prepare the (Environmental Impact Statement – EIS) mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act. The articles states that TransCanada successfully recommended to the Department of State that it select Cardno Entrix to conduct the environmental review, despite the fact that Cardno Entrix lists TransCanada as a “major client.” The article goes on to state that Cardno Entrix may not have fully disclosed all of its work for TransCanada in the conflict of interest affidavit required in the EIS, despite the conflict its relationship with TransCanada presents in this case. Cardno Entrix also apparently played a significant role in organizing public hearings on the pipeline proposal. Senator Harry Reid has seconded these concerns, sending a letter to Secretary Clinton "saying he has ‘serious concern’ about allowing TransCanada to construct and operate a 1,700-mile-long pipeline between Hardisty, Alberta, and Port Arthur, Tex." Another excellent quote from Reid:     The proponents of this pipeline would be wiser to invest instead in job-creating clean energy projects, like renewable power, energy efficiency or advanced vehicles and fuels that would employ thousands of people in the United States rather than increasing our dependency on unsustainable supplies of dirty and polluting oil that could easily be exported. These concerns are magnified by third party assessment of Cardno Entrix's assessment and a continual unfolding of suspicious events. Most recently the Sierra Club has learned that over 25,000 opposition comments submitted by its members have been "lost" by Cardno Entrix. Attempts to ensure that these comments are noted have been rejected by the same State Department bureaucrats who hired Cardno Entrix. These concerns have been raised with Deputy Assistant Secretary Kerri Ann Jones, but no explanation has been forthcoming from the State Department. The integrity of Cardno Entrix's work has been further undermined by the Environmental Protection Agency which has twice called the Environmental Impact Statement "inadequate." The EPA has found that the EIS, "does not provide scope or detail of analysis to fully inform decision makers and the public." According to EPA, the State Department ignored greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution at refineries, pipeline safety and spill response, potential impacts to environmental justice communities, and wetlands and migratory birds. State also limited review of spills into waterways 10 miles from the pipeline, and wells 1 mile. However, the Kalamazoo tar sands pipeline spill plume reached 40 miles away. The EPA and several other federal agencies get a final say on Keystone XL's approval:     In addition, an executive order (PDF) explaining the national interest determination - signed by President George W. Bush in 2004 - requires the State Department to garner input from the EPA administrator, the attorney general, as well as the secretaries of Defense, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy and Homeland Security before reaching a final decision about a pipeline such as Keystone XL. We believe that the exposed conflict of interest should result in a throwing out of the current flawed process and a redo with an actually objective, third party firm. And we hope that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will step in to right the situation by disavowing the currently flawed and corrupt process.  To help the President make this decision, we to show him how the American people really feel about tar sands and this mega-pipeline. We need to send him a message he can't ignore about tar sands. On November 6th, the Sierra Club is gathering with allies from around country to encircle the White House and rally against tar sands. We hope you will join us. And to learn more right away, join us on a conference call with on Tuesday, October 25th, from 5:00 - 6:00pm PT with Executive Director Michael Brune to discuss the Sierra Club's Tar Sands Campaign and learn more about how you can help us stop the expansion of this harmful oil. We'll talk about our plans for the November 6th action, and how you can get involved to help stop the expansion of tar sands. 2011-10-22T01:58:18+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/why_i_am_joining_the_november_6_action_against_the_keystone_xl_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/why_i_am_joining_the_november_6_action_against_the_keystone_xl_pipeline#When:02:02:30Z On November 6, I will be leading a group of NRDC members and experts to the White House. The last time I visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I had the honor of receiving the Medal of Freedom in recognition of what NRDC and the environmental movement have achieved in the last 40 years. On this visit, I want to focus on the future, not the past. On November 6, I will be leading a group of NRDC members and experts to the White House. The last time I visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I had the honor of receiving the Medal of Freedom in recognition of what NRDC and the environmental movement have achieved in the last 40 years. On this visit, I want to focus on the future, not the past. My colleagues and I will join thousands of concerned citizens and together we will peacefully encircle the White House in one large ring. We want to send a message to President Obama: We oppose the Keystone XL pipeline and we stand behind the president’s effort create a clean, 21st-century energy system for America. This will be a new experience for me. In the four decades since I helped found NRDC, I believed the best way for me to defend the environment was as a lawyer, using the legal and scientific strengths of the organization in courtrooms and government buildings. Adams PMoF (Credit Anthony Clark_NRDC)-2900.jpg Yet with gridlock in Washington and climate denial on the campaign trail, I believe a different kind of action is needed—one that gets feet on the ground.  I want to be counted as a citizen. I want our elected officials to know that I am one of millions of Americans who believe the future of our nation lies in clean energy, green innovation, and sustainable growth. Tar sands oil and the Keystone XL pipeline have no place in that future. Tar sands strip mines are destroying a wonderful and vibrant part of Canada’s Boreal Forest. This ancient forest was once teeming with caribou, wolves, and millions of songbirds. Now tar sands operations have been devouring these wildlands; full development of tar sands could eventually affect an area the size of Florida. The destruction doesn’t end there. Turning tar sands into crude oil generates three times the global warming pollution of conventional crude. Burning it in our cars and trucks releases even more. Building the Keystone XL pipeline—which would haul up to 900,000 barrels of this filthy fuel a day—would cement the devastation of the boreal forest and escalation of climate change. Massive infrastructure projects like this last for decades. If President Obama approves it, this tar sands spigot won’t be turned off until after my grandchildren are grown. We cannot afford another 50 years of dirty fuels and unchecked carbon. If we want to shield future generations from the pain of climate change, America must stop sinking money into dirty energy infrastructure. Now. When I started working to stop climate change more than two decades ago, I knew it would take time to build political will for change. What I did not anticipate was the eleventh-hour push to prolong our oil addiction in every conceivable way. Companies are going to the ends of the Earth. They are drilling miles under the Gulf of Mexico, they are clamoring to get into the Arctic Ocean, and they are injecting untested fracking chemicals into rock formations, groundwater reserves, and families’ backyards. The Keystone XL pipeline is just one more nail in the coffin. We don’t need to drain the Earth of every fossil fuel. We have plenty of cleaner ways to power our economy. This summer, President Obama proposed new clean car standards that will cut automobile carbon emissions in half. By 2025, new cars and light trucks in this country will go about twice as far, on average, on a gallon of gas. This will save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs and reduce our oil dependency 12 billion barrels of oil by 2030. This is the kind of innovation America should be investing in right now, not a tar sands pipeline that will lock us into decades of pollution. It’s time to do what President Obama has urged: “end the tyranny of oil.” I believe our era will be remembered for what we did to address global warming. The President’s decision on the Keystone XL will be a key bellwether: did we prioritize the cleaner path or did we endorse the fuel that would sink us deeper into the climate crisis? On November 6, I will be one of many citizens urging President Obama to make the right choice. Our plan for encircling the White House has never been done before, but it will be a completely legal and peaceful event. I hope you will support this effort. You can sign up to join us here, or you can send a message to the President at www.StopTar.org. 2011-10-21T02:02:30+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/senators_question_integrity_of_permitting_process_for_keystone_xl_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/senators_question_integrity_of_permitting_process_for_keystone_xl_pipeline#When:15:44:48Z Last Friday, U.S. Senators Sanders, Leahy, and Wyden wrote a letter to the State Department raising “serious concerns” about whether the permitting process for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has been fair and objective. The letter cites a recent New York Times article exposing a troubling conflict of interest between TransCanada, the proponent of the pipeline, and Cardno Entrix who completed the environmental analysis for the pipeline. The Senators have urged the State Department to conduct a new and objective environmental review saying they have “little confidence” in the current review that found the pipeline had no significant impact to most resources. There is a need for the Obama administration to investigate this conflict of interest to determine whether the environmental review process has been fair, balanced, and impartial. Most importantly, this investigation should be completed before the State Department issues any permit for the pipeline. Last Friday, U.S. Senators Sanders, Leahy, and Wyden wrote a letter to the State Department raising  “serious concerns” about whether the permitting process for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has been fair and objective.  The letter cites a recent New York Times article exposing a troubling conflict of interest between TransCanada, the proponent of the pipeline, and Cardno Entrix who completed the environmental analysis for the pipeline.  The Senators have urged the State Department to conduct a new and objective environmental review saying they have “little confidence” in the current review that found the pipeline had no significant impact to most resources. There is a need for the Obama administration to investigate this conflict of interest to determine whether the environmental review process has been fair, balanced, and impartial.  Most importantly, this investigation should be completed before the State Department issues any permit for the pipeline. The letter is the most recent in a series of new revelations exposing bias within the State Department in favor of approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  This is a story that deserves far more national attention than it currently receives and there is a fair argument that the unfolding scandal at Keystone XL is getting ignored while the Solyndra scandal is being overblown. The picture painted thus far is disturbing. Problem #1: The State Department allowed a firm with a serious conflict of interest to conduct the environmental review. The New York Times article reported that TransCanada, the proponent of the pipeline, managed the bidding process and recommended Cardno Entrix to draft the environmental analysis of the project. The problem is that Cardno Entrix has a substantial conflict of interest - it lists TransCanada as one of its major clients and has done work for other pipeline companies, including oil spill response when pipelines fail.  In other words, it could benefit financially if the pipeline were to rupture.  The New York Times also reported that Cardno Entrix is involved in the TransCanada Bison pipeline project—something they did not reveal to the State Department in their disclosure form. Not surprisingly, the Final Environmental Impact Statement drafted by Cardno Entrix for the State Department found the pipeline would not cause a significant environmental impact despite significant evidence to the contrary. We might expect TransCanada to support its favored contractor but there are serious questions about why the State Department approved the firm that clearly has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the project.  Climate activist Bill McKibben and Canadian author Naomi Klein said, “This is quite possibly the biggest potential scandal of the Obama years.”   Unfortunately, State Department Assistant Secretary Kerri Ann-Jones proclaimed last week that Cardno Entrix completed a solid study. But environmental groups are not buying that.  While the State Department might claim that they heard from many voices, including those in opposition to the pipeline, it is hard to find where in the environmental review the concerns raised by opponents are reflected.  “Entrix should never have been hired to conduct this assessment. Given that Entrix has made millions of dollars off of TransCanada, and has been involved in a number of TransCanada's controversial projects, it is stunning that the State Department hired them given this conflict of interest,” said Damon Moglen, Climate and Energy Project Director for Friends of the Earth. Problem #2: Key State Department officials are biased in favor of the pipeline. There is also evidence of a pro-pipeline bias within the State Department.  The initial evidence of this came from Secretary Clinton herself back in October 2010 when she said the State Department was “inclined” to approve the pipeline despite the fact that thousands of comments were in the midst of being reviewed for the first environmental assessment. Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times reported on a 2009 Wikileaks cable revealing how David Goldwyn, a former State Department energy envoy, helped instruct Canadian officials on improving their “oil sands messaging” and “increasing visibility and accessibility of more positive news stories” while he was on staff to the Secretary (the envoy positions report directly to the Secretary so have considerable power).  Within months of his departure from the State Department, Goldwyn was testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere in favor of the pipeline. Emails obtained by Friends of the Earth, Corporate Ethics International, and the Center for International Environmental Law reveal a close and cozy relationship between TransCanada’s primary lobbyist Paul Elliott and a State Department employee Marja Verloop based out of Ottawa, Canada in the U.S. Ambassador’s office.  One troubling email exchange between Verloop and Elliott reveals a “gentleman’s agreement” between TransCanada and the State Department to relax pipeline safety standards after they obtain a presidential permit for the pipeline.  They discuss an announcement made by TransCanada in 2010 to abandon their request for a special exemption allowing them to pump oil through the pipeline at a dangerously high pressure threatening pipeline safety.  As my colleagues Susan Casey-Lefkowitz and Anthony Swift discuss in more detail, the email exchange makes it clear that both Ms. Verloop and Mr. Elliott had an understanding that TransCanada would likely re-apply for the exemption to raise the pressure after the pipeline was constructed and when opposition was less fierce. Ruptured-Enbridge-Pipeline-from-Kalamazoo-Spill-credit-NTSB.jpg In spite the fact that Entrix also worked for another pipeline company when it spilled 900,000 gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River, there is barely a mention of this event in the Keystone XL EIS. The State Department has suggested that these emails only reflect the views of one of their employees.  But it is clear that Verloop directly briefed the U.S. Canadian Ambassador David Jacobson as well as U.S. Counsel General Laura Lochman on these issues.   Ultimately, the emails released by the State Department are only a slice of what is available.  More information is needed for a fuller picture of the extent to which the bias persisted within the department. Problem #3:  TransCanada has had special access to Secretary Clinton. The released documents also reveal TransCanada has had special access to the State Department primarily through Paul Elliott, who was a former high level staffer for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and who is now TransCanada’s lobbyist promoting Keystone XL before Congress and federal agencies. For example, at one point the State Department was considering a possible two-year delay of the pipeline.  After hearing about this, Elliot used his connections to Clinton’s office and specifically to her Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills to sway the department the other way.  While we do not know if Elliott ever met with Clinton or her close officials, there were meetings with senior State officials and the two year delay never happened. The documents released by Friends of the Earth and a subsequent investigation by DeSmogBlog are now revealing a network of lobbyists as reported by the Washington Post many of whom have been significant big money contributors to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. For example, McKenna Long  & Aldridge, a firm that lobbies for TransCanada, also donated $41,650 in contributions to Hillary Clinton according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Government of Alberta who is one of the largest proponents of the pipeline retained DLA Piper, the largest single source of corporate funds to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.  DLA Piper, its employees and PACs contributed nearly half a million dollars to Clinton’s presidential campaign. There are now eight individuals or firms somehow connected to supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign but who also advocate for TransCanada.  A new FOIA request has been submitted by Friends of the Earth and others seeking to understand the role of these lobbyists and how they have interacted with the State Department on the pipeline decision.  One more reason not to rush the pipeline decision There are many reasons the State Department should reject the Keystone XL pipeline as not being in America’s national interest.  But at a minimum, revelations such as these suggest the State Department slow down and stop rushing the decision.  The State Department has ignored the Environmental Protection Agency’s call in 2010 and 2011 for detailed studies on pipeline safety, refinery emissions, and a closer look at alternatives.  The State Department also has rejected calls by U.S. Congress Nebraska’s senators Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson as well as Governor Heineman to consider a rerouting of the pipeline around the Ogallala aquifer.  There is plenty of evidence supporting calls for an investigation into the State Department and its process.  There is no comfort in the State Department’s defense of their review against claims of pro-industry bias.  The State Department should ask that the President make the final decision rather than make a decision that will be widely criticized as illegitimate.  Millions of Americans have weighed in with their concerns about this pipeline.  They deserve a fair and unbiased process.  While the cozy relationships, conflicts of interest, and allegations of undue influence are troubling, the near absence of response by the State Department to the substantive concerns raised in the environmental review makes this all the more important. 2011-10-16T15:44:48+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/photos_from_tar_sands_hearing_rally http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/photos_from_tar_sands_hearing_rally#When:15:55:55Z Photos from the October 7 rally in Washington. 2011-10-11T15:55:55+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/is_hillary_clinton_on_the_verge_of_putting_a_rubber_stamp_on_a_scandal http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/is_hillary_clinton_on_the_verge_of_putting_a_rubber_stamp_on_a_scandal#When:16:54:14Z According to the Washington Post, the Keystone XL decision has now risen to a first-tier policy and political problem for the president, not only because it sets up the tired old debate of jobs vs. the environment, but because now the specter has been raised that the fix is in, the process has been corrupted, and the decision-makers have been compromised and conflicted in their duties by improper influence from the pipeline proponent TransCanada. According to the Washington Post, the Keystone XL decision has now risen to a first-tier policy and political problem for the president, not only because it sets up the tired old debate of jobs vs. the environment, but because now the specter has been raised that the fix is in, the process has been corrupted, and the decision-makers have been compromised and conflicted in their duties by improper influence from the pipeline proponent TransCanada. At last Friday’s testimony at the State Department’s public hearing, moderate and thoughtful conservation voices such as National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger lambasted Hillary Clinton’s State Department’s “cozy relationships with the corporations pushing this project,” and said that “President Obama needs to step in on this and make a decision based on the evidence and not allow the decision to be made by the Secretary of State or anyone at the State Department who has obvious conflicts of interest.” With this info graphic, Friends of the Earth, Oil Change International, DeSmogBlog.com and The Other 98% have teamed up to raise tough questions about whether the U.S. Department of State and Hillary Clinton are “too conflicted by lobbyist ties to decide on the Keystone XL” tar sands pipeline. On Saturday, the New York Times ran with the conflict-of-interest story, especially focusing on the firm Cardno Entrix, the contractor hired by the U.S. Department of State to manage the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It was issued in August with a finding that the pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” People have had a visceral reaction to the idea that the firm selected to run the EIS process was recommended by TransCanada, advertises TransCanada as one of its “major clients,” and is a pipeline spill clean-up contractor that would be well-positioned to profit from a pipeline spill. If the public wishes to comment on the EIS, emails go to Cardno Entrix. Hillary Clinton’s public pipeline problems started last year in October when she said she was “inclined to support” the approval of the pipeline because “we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada.” When asked whether she meant to say what she did, a State Department spokesman replied, “She did.” This brought a public outcry from the editorial page of the Lincoln Star Journal, calling her comments “inexcusable.” Nebraska’s U.S. Senate delegation joined in an unusual bipartisan condemnation, with the conservative Democrat Ben Nelson calling her words “irresponsible and unacceptable,” and Republican Senator Mike Johanns calling them “premature” and “unfortunate.” The deep ties between the State Department and TransCanada’s lobbyist Paul Elliott have been revealed by nearly two dozen emails acquired in a Freedom of Information request by Friends of the Earth. In one, a State Department official eggs on the TransCanada lobbyist with the ‘attaboy’ encouragement, “Go Paul,” and reminds him that “it’s precisely because you have connections that you’re sought after and hired.” Paul Elliott was a key Clinton aide in her 2008 presidential campaign. Also in the limelight is David Goldwyn, dubbed the “Revolving Door” in the graphic, who is advocating for the pipeline and heads the firm Goldwyn Global Strategies. In his prior gig, David Goldwyn was appointed by Secretary Clinton to the position of State Department coordinator for International Energy Affairs, was previously in the oil industry, and prior to that in the State Department and prior to that in industry. You get the idea. According to the released emails, while at State, Goldwyn was coaching TransCanada on how to advocate publicly for the pipeline and how to respond to environmental concerns. “We are working with our stakeholders, shippers and vendors to deliver on the insight David [Goldwyn] shared with us and to do so by the June 15 deadline,” pipeline lobbyist Elliott wrote. Now back in the private sector, Goldwyn told Platts Energy Week that “the case for a pipeline is overwhelming, and [Hillary Clinton] will approve it.” Partners and lobbyists at McKenna, Long and Aldridge include a former U.S. Ambassador to Canada, a lobbyist formerly at the U.S. Embassy to Canada, prized for “her ability to reach Secretary Clinton by phone,” and a former Director of Federal Affairs for Koch Industries Public Sector. According to the info graphic, total 2008 Clinton contributions from the lobbying firm were $41,650. Although not implicated in the “too cozy with State Department” brewing scandal, Koch Industries got crossways with the truth on the Keystone XL issue. Inside Climate News broke the story that despite telling a U.S. Congressional committee and the news media that the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline has “nothing to do with any of our businesses,” Koch filed an application to intervene in Keystone pipeline decisions for the 327 mile portion of the pipeline in Canada, saying that in its role as Flint Hills Resources and “coordinating supply for its refinery in Pine Bend Minnesota,” Koch Industries “has a direct and substantial interest in the application.” According to Natural Resources Defense Council’s Anthony Swift and Susan Casey Lefkowitz, blogging at NRDC’s Switchboard, the emails show that the State Department knows TransCanada intends to operate the proposed at higher pressures than minimum safety standards allow.     Despite this knowledge, the State Department has been publicly trumpeting these conditions as proof that TransCanada would go beyond what is legally required to ensure the safety of this pipeline. Instead, TransCanada in a gentleman’s agreement with the State Department set up these so-called safety conditions so that later when public scrutiny has died down, they can endanger our rural areas as they move forward with higher pressure levels for the corrosive tar sands oil. Many politicians and their constituents have relied on State Department’s good faith and objectivity as they considered their position on Keystone XL. These emails show that reliance was misplaced. Swift and Casey Lefkowitz call on the Obama Administration to pay attention, and I agree: “It is time for the Obama Administration to step in before the State Department puts its rubber stamp on a scandal.” With all the rumblings in America about crony capitalism, the unchecked power of money in politics, and an uprising of concern about how big shots are calling all the shots, this is a brewing scandal that the Obama administration does not need. 2011-10-10T16:54:14+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/over_200_business_leaders_call_on_the_president_to_reject_the_keystone_xl_t http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/over_200_business_leaders_call_on_the_president_to_reject_the_keystone_xl_t#When:16:44:27Z Over 200 business leaders sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as not being in our economic interest. The State Department is currently determining whether this project is in the national interest. Business leaders and investors with a stake in the clean energy economy are sending a clear message: the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will undermine our efforts to move forward with clean energy investments. It is not in our economic interest to support expansion of the tar sands oil industry. Over 200 business leaders sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as not being in our economic interest. The State Department is currently determining whether this project is in the national interest. Business leaders and investors with a stake in the clean energy economy are sending a clear message: the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will undermine our efforts to move forward with clean energy investments. It is not in our economic interest to support expansion of the tar sands oil industry. Providing input into the national interest determination process around the pipeline, these business leaders find that “Permitting the Keystone XL pipeline is a long-term investment in tar sands oil, one of the most carbon and water intensive fuels under development. If constructed, this pipeline will undermine the U.S. commitment to a transition to clean, sustainable energy.” The letter provides the solution: “We urge you to reject projects that are so detrimental to America’s emerging clean energy economy by finding that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in our national interest.” The letter comes from business owners, investors, economists, and many others who are deeply committed to America’s clean energy economy. They are members of a group called Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2). E2 is a non partisan, national community whose members manage over $90 billion in private equity capital that nourishes our economy. E2 members have a real stake in this issue: they are the ones on the frontlines in the United States helping us to achieve a clean energy economy by investing in companies and creating jobs. Theirs is a strong voice in this debate. They are concerned that with tar sands expansion, America will be going after a source of oil that actually undermines jobs in our country as recently found in a report from the Cornell Global Labor Institute. They are concerned that with tar sands we are increasing our dependence on ever more expensive and more risky forms of oil. They are concerned that despite the energy security arguments made by pipeline proponents, the pipeline is endangering American economic interests to export tar sands to markets abroad. And they know from their own investments and experience that this is the time for us to stay committed to American ingenuity and American clean energy businesses, jobs and investments. The business community is sending a clear message to the White House: this is not the time for moving backwards with expansion of the costly and risky tar sands oil. The President should reject the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as not in our national economic interest. 2011-10-06T16:44:27+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/u.s._gets_a_fossil_of_the_day_for_keystone_xl_at_the_global_warming_negotia http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/u.s._gets_a_fossil_of_the_day_for_keystone_xl_at_the_global_warming_negotia#When:17:32:01Z At global warming negotiations in Panama the Obama Administration received a “fossil of the day” for its efforts to help push through approval of the Keystone XL project – the 1,700 mile pipeline to bring Canadian tar sands through the U.S. The “fossil of the day” is given to the country that most stalls global warming action for that day. The decision on Keystone XL is one of the key decisions President Obama has to make over the next few months on global warming. As the person giving out this “award” said: “President Obama yes you can…say no to Keystone pipeline”. At global warming negotiations  in Panama the Obama Administration received a “fossil of the day” for its efforts to help push through approval of the Keystone XL project – the 1,700 mile pipeline to bring Canadian tar sands through the U.S.  The “fossil of the day” is given to the country that most stalls global warming action for that day.  The decision on Keystone XL is one of the key decisions President Obama has to make over the next few months on global warming.   As the person giving out this “award” said: “President Obama yes you can…say no to Keystone pipeline”. United States and Saudi Arabia awarded dubius honor at UN Climate Talks The fossil of the day has been a regular ceremony at global warming negotiations since 1999.  It is given by the global NGO community to the country that failed the most that day to lead on efforts to address global warming.  Typically the recipient country receives a lump of coal, but in this case the US was awarded a pipeline of carbon polluting tar sands that said:     “Compliments of TransCanada, brought to you U.S. State Department.” While the government of Saudi Arabia (the second place recipient today) receives its fossil awards as a badge of honor, receiving a fossil is not something to write home about if you want to be a global warming leader.  It is a shameful award, given to countries that hurt global efforts to address climate change.  A crowd always gathers at the fossil of the day ceremony and receiving this award is followed by boos, hisses, and shame.     Here is the video of the “award ceremony” thanks to our friends at 350.org (who have a blog on this as well): USA Wins Fossil of the Day award from 350.org on Vimeo. The decision on this pipeline, combined with the decision on greenhouse gas standards for power plants, is a critical test of whether President Obama’s stated commitment to address global warming is followed with actions.  After all, President Obama stressed that:  “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change…” Unfortunately the State Department officials in charge of this decision didn’t seem to get the memo about leadership on global warming.  Instead they were “coaching” the officials at TransCanada – the operator of the pipeline – on how to change their messaging on the pipeline.  And they had a “gentlemen’s agreement” to mask from public important considerations. As the “award” description that followed the receipt of this fossil states:     “…recent news has surfaced that the US State Department has a bias towards carbon polluting pipelines--namely, the Keystone XL, which is a 1,700-mile fuse to the largest Carbon bomb on the planet, the Alberta tar sands. The State Department is currently conducting a review for the pipeline, but has been receiving significant counsel from the pipeline company's own lobbyists.          Exploiting the tar sands is a dangerous step in the wrong direction, and one that President Obama will decide upon before the year is out. This troubling relationship obscures the fact that saying no to Keystone XL is a positive step for the US to demonstrate seriousness in face of the climate crisis.” This pipeline is not in the U.S. national interest, is a recipe for disaster, and will undermine efforts to address global warming.  And now the decision on Keystone XL is spilling into global warming negotiations. A yes decision on this pipeline will hurt with the U.S. credibility in global warming negotiations.  After all, how can the U.S. ask other countries to build low-carbon economies when it unleashes a massive investment in the dirty energy of the past? 2011-10-05T17:32:01+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/outpouring_of_calls_to_reject_keystone_xl_pipeline_as_state_dept_holds_fina http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/outpouring_of_calls_to_reject_keystone_xl_pipeline_as_state_dept_holds_fina#When:16:40:56Z The State Department is holding the last in a series of public meetings on TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on October 7 in Washington. This D.C. hearing concludes a series of meetings in states all along the pipeline right-of-way. Remarkable about these hearings is how clearly they show that people from all walks of life see the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as a dirty and dangerous step backwards when we should be moving forwards with strong clean energy solutions. The Obama Administration is being sent a clear message that they should reject this tar sands pipeline. President Obama and Secretary Clinton should not want their legacy to include expansion of one of the dirtiest fuels on earth. The State Department is holding the last in a series of public meetings on TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on October 7 in Washington. This D.C. hearing concludes a series of meetings in states all along the pipeline right-of-way. Remarkable about these hearings is how clearly they show that people from all walks of life see the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as a dirty and dangerous step backwards when we should be moving forwards with strong clean energy solutions. The Obama Administration is being sent a clear message that they should reject this tar sands pipeline. President Obama and Secretary Clinton should not want their legacy to include expansion of one of the dirtiest fuels on earth. The DC hearing this Friday, and the accompanying noon rally, will see the same span of people speaking out against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and raising their very valid concerns. The kickoff will be a screening of a new film by award-winning director Leslie Iwerks called Pipe Dreams about the real costs of the proposed Keystone XL project. Speakers at the hearing will include a pipeline safety inspector who found problems with safety on the earlier TransCanada pipeline construction, a General who sees tar sands as a problem for security, a Mayor who brings concerns of communities for how this pipeline will undermine their efforts to reduce oil dependence, and First Nations and Tribal representatives whose culture, health and land is being harmed. Just recently we have seen an outpouring of calls to reject the pipeline and seen new information that calls the safety and need of the pipeline and the integrity of the State Department-run process into serious question.     VoteVets just released a document calling on the Administration to reject the pipeline. They say: “In its public push to gain US approval for its Keystone XL pipeline, energy giant Transcanada has attempted to warp the facts to make it seem that they have the US’ national security at heart.  We cannot be clear enough – Transcanada and its allies are playing to national security fears of the American people to make a buck.  Those who truly care about America’s national security and its military will stand up against these arguments, and not allow a foreign corporation and its foreign allies to prey on Americans in this manner.”     The scrutiny of the State Department’s cosy relationship with the foreign pipeline company TransCanada has increased with new releases of emails that show how they worked together to develop strategies to build public confidence in the pipeline. And the interest of Big Oil players, the Koch Brothers, in the pipeline found additional grounding in their company’s own statements before Canada’s National Energy Board.      A pipeline safety inspector on TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline, which has already leaked 14 times in its first year of operation in the United States, has raised many safety-related construction problems he saw while working on that pipeline. The documents that Friends of the Earth forced the State Department to release under the Freedom of Information Act also show coordination between the State Department and the pipeline company to make it seem the pipeline would be safer than it would in fact be.     New information shows that oil companies bringing the tar sands through this pipeline to the Gulf want to use it for export and that it will not mean security of supply for America or replacement of oil from the Middle East.     The Cornell Global Labor Institute has issued two recent reports showing that TransCanada is unconscionably preying on people’s need for jobs to make wildly inflated jobs claims, when in fact this new tar sands pipeline might actually cost us jobs due to higher gas prices in the Midwest and the likelihood of oil spills in the waters on which America’s farmers depend.     The news from the hearings this week was also moving. Farmers, landowners, and many others voiced their concerns in the hundreds, especially noting abuse of landowners by TransCanada as this foreign company has pressured them to give up their land for the pipeline path. In Nebraska especially, moving pleas were made to protect the Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer. In fact the Governor of Nebraska, both Senators and many others are saying that the Nebraska Sandhills are no place for an oil spill.     And across the ocean, the European Union withstood what has been months of lobbying by pro-tar sands interests and put a strong clean fuels standard in place – something that is needed across the United States to encourage clean, low-carbon transportation solutions and discourage climate change bombs such as tar sands oil.     On the lighter side in other international news, but showing how much the world is watching what decision America makes on this pipeline, the United States won the “fossil award” for its stance until now on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline at the international climate conference in Panama this week. Certainly the State Department’s determination that this pipeline would have “no significant environmental impact” was misguided and misleading. The swell of voices against this tar sands project say reject this pipeline. President Obama and Secretary Clinton should not want oil spills in the Ogallala Aquifer and increased dependence on oil to be their legacy. In recent months, we have seen religious leaders, grandparents, farmers, ranchers and many others risk arrest because the issue of how we move forward with our energy future and how we protect our climate is one of the most important decisions that we will deal with in our generation. And hundreds will be gathering again at the White House on November 6 to repeat the message: It is time to protect the climate. We have better solutions than expanding tar sands. It is time for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to be on the right side of this debate and to show with their action in rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that in addition to putting strong greenhouse gas regulations and incentives for clean energy in place, we need to say no to expansion of dirty fuels. Go to www.stoptar.org to take action. 2011-10-05T16:40:56+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/eu_not_buying_canadas_green_spin http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/eu_not_buying_canadas_green_spin#When:19:00:10Z Today, the European Union showed that it isn’t going to back down in the face of Canadian pressure. Canada has been lobbying hard to convince the EU to ignore the higher carbon content of tar sands oil in its new Fuel Quality Directive, even going as far as to threaten a trade challenge. The EU, however, has decided to call a spade a spade and is planning to assign a higher carbon value to tar sands oil than conventional oil. Today, the European Union showed that it isn’t going to back down in the face of Canadian pressure. Canada has been lobbying hard to convince the EU to ignore the higher carbon content of tar sands oil in its new Fuel Quality Directive, even going as far as to threaten a trade challenge. The EU, however, has decided to call a spade a spade and is planning to assign a higher carbon value to tar sands oil than conventional oil. The EU has been developing a new policy to reduce the climate impact of transportation fuels. The rules will mean European countries will be looking to buy more low carbon fuels, and less high carbon fuels like the tar sands.Tar sands has been given a 22% higher carbon value than conventional oil. Right now, Europe doesn’t buy a lot of tar sands oil from Canada. So why has our government staked so much on this decision? In this case, perception matters. The EU decision follows a similar decision (equally lobbied against by Canada) in California. California has also identified tar sands as a higher carbon fuel in its Low Carbon Fuel Standard. One jurisdiction can be brushed off as rogue, but now you have two. The reality is that when other states make an honest attempt to reduce the climate impact of fuels, tar sands quickly sinks to the bottom of the wish list. And, as other countries move to deal with global warming, more will follow this path. The tar sands industry and federal government often claim that Canada is being unfairly victimized. Yet a report released today by the federal Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development provided another scathing assessment of the federal government’s role in dealing with climate change and the impacts of tar sands. Our diplomats try to smooth over concerns about tar sands by claiming that Canada is acting to deal with the problems. Meanwhile at home, there’s still no plan to tackle global warming or regulate the impacts of the tar sands. Europe, like California, has called Canada’s spin. 2011-10-04T19:00:10+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/reflections_on_keystone_xl_hearings_in_nebraska http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/reflections_on_keystone_xl_hearings_in_nebraska#When:16:32:32Z My estimates of the Atkinson crowd was about 1,200. The anti-pipeline folks far outweighed the laborers in orange, who were almost all bused in. Of course you also had a small number of oil boys scattered in through the crowd. Folks from the local area, & from all over the state came to lead the charge. The pro-pipeline repititious arguments of jobs & energy indepence were once again far outdone by the facts, creativity & passion from our side. All age groups were represented & at least 12 Nebraska Farmers Union Members testified (9 more spoke in Lincoln, I am so proud of our members), several whom are landowners directly affected by the KXL Pipeline. "It is hard to put into words how proud I am right now to be a Nebraskan & all the emotions that ran through me yesterday (& Tuesday).  My estimates of the Atkinson crowd was about 1,200.  The anti-pipeline folks far outweighed the laborers in orange, who were almost all bused in.  Of course you also had a small number of oil boys scattered in through the crowd.  Folks from the local area, & from all over the state came to lead the charge.  The pro-pipeline repititious arguments of jobs & energy indepence were once again far outdone by the facts, creativity & passion from our side.  All age groups were represented & at least 12 Nebraska Farmers Union Members testified (9 more spoke in Lincoln, I am so proud of our members), several whom are landowners directly affected by the KXL Pipeline. So many thanks to the leaders on this issue: Jane Kleeb (& of course her sidekick Malinda) & all the Bold Folks, Ken Winston & the Sierra Club, State Senator Ken Haar & his amazing leadership, Duane Hvorka of NE Wildlife, my counterparts in the Farmers Union Ben Gotschall & Lynda Buoy, NeFU’s fearless leader & my boss John K. Hansen, the Indiginious & Tribal Members, the national folks that have had faith in us & continued to back our efforts, and everyone else that has been with us through the thick & thin…you know who you are.  But most importantly to the local folks that have been directly affected by the heavy-handed ways of TransCanada & all the emotions that they have fought through to do what is not only in their best interests, but in the best interests of all in this great state & country. When I got home last night just before 3am I was so tired, & still found it hard to crash after the 22 hour marathon day.  There was just too many great things that kept popping into my mind.  All of the stories I had heard, the vibe, the unity…I even swore I sensed some humbleness in the U.S. State Dept Authorities as they heard one touching story after another. But when I woke up this late morning I felt ready to keep going, to fight on for what is right, on behalf of all these great people in our State.  I hope & pray we win this battle.  The momentum is on our side & I don’t see any chance of us folding.  I see victory in our future, but even in the chance things don’t go our way, someday I can look back & know for certain that I did what was morally right, & I will remember all of you that believed in this same vision." - Graham P. Christensen ********* "I was never so proud to be a Nebraskan as I was while attending and participating in the hearings in Lincoln and Atkinson this week. More than 1,000 of our people attended each of the hearings, compared with about 250 pro pipeline people in Lincoln and about 150 in Atkinson. All of our people got there on their own power and the vast majority of the pro-pipeline people were bused in, and most of them were from other states. Our folks wrote their own testimony and spoke with eloquence and power and authenticity. Local nurse Cindy Myers presented her in-depth research on water and toxins in the tar sands, landowners like Teri Taylor, Susan Luebbe, and Randy Thompson told their stories of harassment by TransCanada, and a young mother who is also an Iraq war vet spoke movingly of her hopes and dreams for her young children. We had Senators Haar and Dubas talking about the need for the State of Nebraska to take action to protect its resources. John Stansbury, the UNL scientist who wrote the worst case report, did a great job attacking the credibility of the FEIS. Ben Gotschall debunked a bunch of TransCanada's lies with his usual eloquence. One after another landowners and local residents showed that they know the land they live on and that they are the real experts on how to preserve and protect the Sandhills. The State Department should heed their message. The pro-pipeline folks re-ran some of the same testimony they presented on Tuesday, as if they knew it wasn't credible and hoped that repeating it might improve it. Most of the union guys got up and read pre-prepared statements. The representatives from the Platte Institute and AFP and some of the union guys attacked the opponents as being radicals; particularly Bold Nebraska and the Sierra Club. I suggest they are the ones who are being radical, since our position (deny the permit) is the same as Republican Governor Heineman and Republican Senator Mike Johanns. They are also curiously silent about protecting landowners' property rights, while we are the primary advocates for landowners against foreign corporations. They also made snide comments about civil disobedience; I happen to know most of the people from Nebraska who got arrested and I will put their ethics and morals above any of these corporate shills any day of the week. But all of this didn't just happen. A lot of us worked hard to develop relationships with landowners and local residents, to keep issues alive in the press, to let people know that their voices mattered and to give them a sense of empowerment. I want to give a big shout out to Jane for the amazing work that she is doing and for making Bold into a force to be reckoned with, to John Hansen and Graham Christensen at Farmers Union, to Duane Hovorka at Nebraska Wildlife Federation and Marian Langan at Audubon Nebraska. I also want to recognize people like Ben Gotschall, Malinda Frevert and the other folks with Bold, and Angel Romero and Brittany Crawford with NE Sierra Club for their work. And we greatly appreciate the support of our national partners, particularly the fact that Nic Callero from NWF was here in Nebraska this week. I know we have a lot of work to do. There is the DC hearing next week and comments to submitted. We are hard at work trying to get a special session in Nebraska. I am working with landowners to try to get their legal claims heard. We will have more events and more activities to bring our message to the people. We will keep working and fighting this atrocity, as my 14 year old daughter called it." - Ken Winston of Sierra Club Nebraska 2011-10-04T16:32:32+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/video_from_ottawa_action http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/video_from_ottawa_action#When:15:41:24Z More than 200 people risked arrest on Parliament Hill in the largest climate-related civil disobedience action in Canadian history. September 26, 2011 - More than 200 people risked arrest on Parliament Hill in the largest climate-related civil disobedience action in Canadian history. The rally and the civil disobedience remained peaceful through the day-long event on the Hill. The main message of the action was to urge Prime Minister Harper to turn away from a destructive tar sands industry and start building a green energy future that promotes climate justice, respects Indigenous rights and prioritizes the health of the environment and communities. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CiJJ1nygwi8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> 2011-10-03T15:41:24+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/british_columbia_has_better_options_than_bringing_tar_sands_oil_across_its http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/british_columbia_has_better_options_than_bringing_tar_sands_oil_across_its#When:16:39:20Z Yesterday, catching us by surprize after a rain-free day out on the river, we had the first snowfall of the season. Up in northern British Columbia, Canada in a town called Smithers that is. I am here on the trail of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that would bring tar sands from Alberta across the Rockies and miles of pristine wilderness to the coast. This is another of the tar sands projects that would affect the lands, waters, hearts and livelihoods of thousands of people. It would bring the danger of tar sands oil spills into the home of the majestic Spirit Bear, rivers teaming with wild salmon and coastal waters swimming with whales, orcas, and dolphins. Tar sands could destroy the way of life in this part of British Columbia for the people and the wildlife. This cannot be allowed to happen and there are many First Nations and local community members who have been working hard for many years to show that British Columbia has better options for its economic development and way of life than tar sands oil pipelines. Yesterday, catching us by surprize after a rain-free day out on the river, we had the first snowfall of the season. Up in northern British Columbia, Canada in a town called Smithers that is. I am here on the trail of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that would bring tar sands from Alberta across the Rockies and miles of pristine wilderness to the coast. This is another of the tar sands projects that would affect the lands, waters, hearts and livelihoods of thousands of people. It would bring the danger of tar sands oil spills into the home of the majestic Spirit Bear, rivers teaming with wild salmon and coastal waters swimming with whales, orcas, and dolphins. Tar sands could destroy the way of life in this part of British Columbia for the people and the wildlife. This cannot be allowed to happen and there are many First Nations and local community members who have been working hard for many years to show that British Columbia has better options for its economic development and way of life than tar sands oil pipelines. As I was listening to the people who live and work here discuss their concerns with this tar sands pipeline, hundreds of people were being arrested in Ottawa, as they voiced their concerns about tar sands and pipeline such as the proposed Keystone XL project from Canada to the Gulf Coast. It was also the first day of hearings on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Hundreds came out in Port Arthur, Texas where tar sands would only bring more pollution to communities suffering under existing oil refining. And in Topeka, Kansas, Rabbi Moti Rieber, representing the Kansas Interfaith Power & Light, said the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL project was an environmental disaster waiting to happen and place land, water and air resources at risk. The strip-mining and drilling for tar sands from deep under the Boreal forest takes place in northern Alberta. But its impacts would reach along proposed pipeline corridors to the west, the east and the south. The people in northern British Columbia are right in their concern about what bringing tar sands through their mountains, over their rivers and into their marine ecosystems would mean for their way of life. Tar sands is more corrosive and more likely to leak from pipelines. In a terrain where roads regularly wash out in floods, landslides take out pipelines, spills from a tar sands pipeline unfortunately become something that we can expect. Even in easy to access areas tar sands are harder to clean up than conventional oil – just look at how the spill of tar sands oil from the Enbridge pipeline in Michigan is still not cleaned up more than one year after it happened. Now imagine northern British Columbia with its high mountains, remote valleys and wild rivers. A spill in this area could go unnoticed and would be very hard to access and clean up. And what are the main concerns of the people in this region? Over 100 First Nations oppose this tar sands pipeline and the prospect of large oil tankers entering this region. The First Nations’ Fraser River Declaration bans the tar sands pipeline from coming through their territories – in fact it bans tar sands from all of the migration routes of the Fraser River Salmon. This Declaration is based on ancestral laws, title, rights and responsibilities of these Nations. The Skeena watershed of northern British Columbia is critical salmon habitat and salmon truly are the lifeblood of this region. Salmon in a river mean that the whole river is healthy. People come from all over the world to fish the Morice and Bulkley Rivers near Smithers, also feeding the local economy. The Skeena River provides most of the fish for the north coast commercial fishing fleet. The tar sands pipeline would cut through the landscape of these critical rivers. Salmon are also a main source of food for the Kermode bear a rare white variation of the Black bear that the local First Nations call the “Spirit Bear”.  The beautiful Spirit Bear has become a symbol of this coast and the importance of its survival for the wellbeing of all of the wildlife that thrives there. In fact, not only would the proposed Enbridge tar sands pipeline mean danger for these rivers, but also for sensitive inner coastal waters. Along the coast of British Columbia, the ocean and land meet in a mosaic of bays, channels, fjords, inlets, and estuaries. The rocky beaches come down to the water from ancient stands of thousand-year-old hemlocks, cedars and Sitka spruce. More than a dozen marine mammal species — including fin whales, humpbacks and threatened orcas — thrive in these rich coastal waters. Bringing tar sands to this coast would not only mean the treacherous passage for the pipeline over rivers and wildlands, but it would also open the coast to large oil tanker traffic that would need to come into the town of Kitimat to be shipped out still in the form of raw tar sands oil to Asia or California markets. These difficult to navigate sensitive inner coastal waters of the central and north coast of British Columbia have in fact been closed to large oil tanker traffic since the early 1970’s. More recently in 2010 the Coastal First Nations put a ban in place on large oil tankers coming into these waters. This ban is also based on ancestral law and must be respected by tankers and should be confirmed in federal law by the Canadian government. Expansion of the tar sands is not in Canada’s national interest, especially not when it depends on the possible devastation of rivers and the way of life for First Nations and communities. British Columbia should be doing what it can to prevent the approval of Enbridge’s tar sands pipeline. And the Canadian federal government should put a ban on large oil tanker traffic and not allow the interests of Big Oil to trump the interests of First Nations and the people of British Columbia. 2011-09-27T16:39:20+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_action_why_i_will_be_risking_arrest_today http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_action_why_i_will_be_risking_arrest_today#When:16:28:56Z Today I am going to participate in an event that will likely result in my arrest. I will be joining hundreds of other Canadians in non-violent civil disobedience to protest the Harper government's inaction on climate change and demand that they stop the expansion of the Alberta tar sands. Today I am going to participate in an event that will likely result in my arrest. I will be joining hundreds of other Canadians in non-violent civil disobedience to protest the Harper government's inaction on climate change and demand that they stop the expansion of the Alberta tar sands. The reactions of family and friends have been interesting as I explain my motivations. Most people struggle to understand how breaking the law could possibly be a good thing. The reality is, I would prefer to avoid getting arrested and instead feel confident that my government was taking seriously one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced. Unfortunately they are not, so I will be risking arrest on Monday. Here is why;  The climate crisis is real and urgent but it is not too late By now we know well that the devastating impact of climate change threatens the food we grow, the homes we live in and the water we drink. Climate change threatens peace and security and exacerbates ongoing conflicts throughout the world. If Canada continues to refuse to act, these devastating impacts will become catastrophic. Dangerous climate change is a preventable threat to the livelihoods of indigenous peoples, millions of species of plants and animals, vulnerable populations, and our children and grandchildren that will bear the ultimate consequences of our government's indifference. The good news is that if governments like ours take serious action now, we can prevent the worst. Solidarity and justice Climate change is at its core an injustice. Those who suffer the most have done so little to contribute to this crisis, and they are the least prepared to deal with the impacts. Women and children in impoverished countries are especially vulnerable. As I risk arrest, others risk their lives for their most basic needs. Advertising Canada and the tar sands are dragging the world down Canada is one of the worst countries in the industrialized world when it comes to taking action on climate change, and we know why: tar sands. The tar sands are Canada's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution, and if they are allowed to expand as projected they will make it impossible for Canada to do its fair share to combat global warming. This government's short-term interests have turned them into a lobby arm for one of the most destructive projects on the planet. Not only is Canada failing to take action at home, they are also actively trying to prevent other countries from cleaning up their act. We need the Canadian government to invest the billions it spends each year on handouts and lobbying for the oil industry in a clean future for Canadians and the world. An inspiring history Our global addiction to and the dangerous exploitation of fossil fuels goes against everything we need to ensure a safe and peaceful future for humanity. It is disappointing, but of course not unprecedented, that citizens such as ourselves must rise above the moral shortcomings of our governments at this critical moment. We are joining the ranks of those who have taken similar risks to demand a better future. There was a time when an end to slavery, universal suffrage and basic civil rights seemed unattainable, but the moral imperative for action changed our world for the better. The climate crisis is one of the greatest moral challenges of our time, and this is why we are acting together to challenge our government to do what is right. There is an inspiring and proven power in non-violent civil disobedience and I sincerely hope that our actions are helping to build the movement that will change the world. Inspiring colleagues Over the last month I watched -- with great respect -- over 1,000 dedicated individuals in the U.S. be arrested in a peaceful demonstration to tell President Obama to say no to the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline, and the tar sands oil it would transport, represents a choice. A choice between preserving the planet we share, and sacrificing it by allowing the climate crisis to spiral out of control. I feel strongly that as people of the country that is the root cause of this problem, we too must ensure our government hears the message. As. U.S. activist Tim DeChristopher put it in a statement to the court during a trial for his own act of non-violent civil disobedience: "The reality is not that I lack respect for the law; it's that I have greater respect for justice. Where there is a conflict between the law and the higher moral code that we all share, my loyalty is to that higher moral code." My allegiance too is with the higher moral code. The only ethical choice we have is one the moves us away from fossil fuels and towards a just, clean and safe future. Please join us on Monday on Parliament Hill. You do not need to be prepared to risk arrest to participate. Visit ottawaaction.ca for more details. Hannah McKinnon is the communications coordinator with Climate Action Network Canada -- but today she will be taking the day off to risk arrest along with many others to protest this government's inaction on climate change. 2011-09-26T16:28:56+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_expansion_conflicts_with_official_us_policy_objective_to_address http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_expansion_conflicts_with_official_us_policy_objective_to_address#When:17:59:42Z When President Obama came into office he promised US leadership on global warming policy. Before Obama was inaugurated he said: “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change…” Will that promised new chapter lead to a rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline that will bring tar sands from Canada through the US. While focus will still be aimed at the fatally flawed “environmental impact assessment” conducted by the State Department, President Obama will now have to make another decision: whether the pipeline is in the national interest of the US (the so-called “national interest determination”). While this determination is a bit vague, it is clear that this pipeline is not in the national interest since it undercuts a major US policy objective of addressing climate change. (And there are other reasons why this is clearly not in the US national interest). When President Obama came into office he promised US leadership on global warming policy.  Before Obama was inaugurated he said: “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change…” Will that promised new chapter lead to a rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline that will bring tar sands from Canada through the US.  While focus will still be aimed at the fatally flawed “environmental impact assessment” conducted by the State Department, President Obama will now have to make another decision: whether the pipeline is in the national interest of the US (the so-called “national interest determination”).  While this determination is a bit vague, it is clear that this pipeline is not in the national interest since it undercuts a major US policy objective of addressing climate change.  (And there are other reasons why this is clearly not in the US national interest). Greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands extraction and upgrading is 3-4 times more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional oil.  The emissions created from producing the tar sands oil piped through Keystone XL will increase carbon pollution by 27 million metric tons above emissions from the equivalent amount of conventional oil, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.  At a time when we shouldn’t be investing in carbon polluting infrastructure, this pipeline would be the “gateway drug” to even more tar sands expansion.  The tar sands industry has proposed expanding tar sands production to as much as 7.6 million barrels per day, as shown in the figure below. Using the same calculations as EPA, the emissions created from producing this much tar sands compared with the equivalent amount of conventional oil would be 228 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. So by rejecting the Keystone XL President Obama can help to significantly reduce global warming pollution, which is a stated major policy priority of the Obama Administration.   Addressing Climate Change is a Major US Domestic and Foreign Policy Priority Leading US foreign policy officials – President Obama and Secretary Clinton – and official US foreign policy documents make it clear that addressing climate change is a major foreign policy priority.  Here are the details: President Obama has articulated the need to address climate change at major foreign policy venues.  In receiving the Nobel Prize President Obama stressed the national security and foreign policy implications of failing to address climate change:     “There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.  For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance” [emphasis added]. In another high-level foreign policy speech before 100 heads of government, President Obama stressed:     “Our generation's response to this challenge [climate change] will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe…     The security and stability of each nation and all peoples -- our prosperity, our health, our safety -- are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.     …And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe” [emphasis added]. Secretary Hilary Clinton has stressed that of the priorities facing the US addressing climate change is a major priority.  In several prominent speeches, Secretary Clinton has stressed the importance to US interests of addressing global warming. In announcing the appointment of Todd Stern as Special Climate Envy, Secretary Clinton said:     “As should be evident by now, the President and I believe that American leadership is essential to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. And chief among those is the complex, urgent, and global threat of climate change.     And let’s be clear. A world in crisis goes well beyond the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. It is at once an environmental, economic, energy and national security issue with grave implications for America’s and the world’s future” [emphasis added]. Speaking before the seventeen largest emitters Secretary Clinton stated:     “First, the science is unambiguous and the logic that flows from it is inescapable. Climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention. Second, the United States is fully engaged and ready to lead and determined to make up for lost time, both at home and abroad. The President and his entire Administration are committed to addressing this issue and we will act” [emphasis added].  US National Security Strategy mentions climate change 23 times (no mentions of tar sands, etc).  In May 2010, President Obama signed a new US National Security Strategy.  The White House website says that this document: “…lays out a strategic approach for advancing American interests…”  The strategy clearly articulates the foreign policy priority of addressing climate change when it stresses:     “Climate change…threaten the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people.     Our diplomacy and development capabilities must help…combat climate change…” [emphasis added]. Expansion of tar sands, bitumen, oil shale, or any other variation wasn’t mentioned anywhere in this document which outlines the Administrations national security objectives. Continued expansion of tar sands will make it impossible for Canada to meet its international climate commitments, according to official projections from the Canadian Environment Ministry.  Countries taking action at home and living up to their international climate commitments is the main strategy of the Obama Administration international climate policy.  As Special Envoy Todd Stern stressed: “it makes a great deal of difference that all countries have confidence that others are following through on their undertakings.”  By rejecting the Keystone XL the Obama Administration could single-handedly make the most important decision to aid Canada in meeting its international global warming commitment.  Failing to reject the pipeline would be like admitting that the US is alright with Canada reneging on its commitments.   So what is it President Obama and Secretary Clinton: is addressing climate change really a major foreign policy objective of this Administration or were those just words.  Rejecting this pipeline would send an important signal that your words have meaning.  As you know, international diplomacy is the most powerful when your words match your deeds. 2011-09-23T17:59:42+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/nobel_peace_prize_winners_condemn_keystone_xl_pipeline_for_dirty_tar_sands http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/nobel_peace_prize_winners_condemn_keystone_xl_pipeline_for_dirty_tar_sands#When:17:34:15Z Recently nine Nobel Peace Prize Winners wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Alberta to Texas. Today NRDC and the Nobel Women’s Initiative are running an ad in the Washington Post featuring the full text of the letter and its powerful message. Recently nine Nobel Peace Prize Winners wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Alberta to Texas. Today NRDC and the Nobel Women’s Initiative are running an ad in the Washington Post featuring the full text of the letter and its powerful message. Thumbnail image for _DSC5662.Tutu.smaller.jpg The authors include His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and American landmines activist Jody Williams. Each one of these moral leaders condemns the pipeline for the threats it will pose to communities in its path, the Ogallala Aquifer it will traverse, and the global climate it will alter. The Laureates write to the president: “Like you, we understand that strip-mining and drilling tar sands from under Alberta’s Boreal forests and then transporting thousands of barrels of oil a day from Canada through to Texas will not only hurt people in the US—but will also endanger the entire planet. After the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, the full development of the Alberta tar sands will create the world’s second largest potential source of global warming gases.” Indeed, the production process alone for tar sand fuel generates three times as much global warming pollution as conventional crude. That doesn’t even include burning it in cars. Inviting more of this dirty fuel into America will benefit tar sands oil companies, but it won’t help our nation’s energy future. The State Department is currently consulting with agencies and the public to determine whether the pipeline is in America’s national interest. Yet critical pieces of the review process remain missing on issues such as pipeline safety, alternative routes to the Ogallala Aquifer, and environmental justice. There is no need to rush the decision on this pipeline. The Administration should have all the necessary information before it makes it determination. The Administration’s recent decisions to abandon stronger limits on smog and to delay issuing rules to reduce carbon emissions from power plants have been a deep disappointment and will result in a further threat to our health. The Keystone XL pipeline sets the stage yet again to see whether the president will act on his commitment to protect the nation from the deleterious effects of climate change. 2011-09-19T17:34:15+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/nebraska_cornhuskers_banish_keystone_xl_pipeline_ads_from_hallowed_memorial http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/nebraska_cornhuskers_banish_keystone_xl_pipeline_ads_from_hallowed_memorial#When:22:02:00Z To most Husker fans, football is something akin to religion. And Memorial Stadium in Lincoln is their church. It is a place to go with single-minded fervor. A place to focus on football. And to many, it was a place defiled at a game earlier this month. Here is how the Lincoln Journal Star describes it: I’ve never liked the University of Nebraska football program. Years of watching them run up scores against my beloved Missouri Tigers in the Big 12 filled me with jealous disdain. And the sea of red in Faurot Field created by their masses of traveling fans was daunting. But something has happened to roll back some of that ill will. It migh just have me cheering for the Cornhuskers. And it started with a boo. To most Husker fans, football is something akin to religion. And Memorial Stadium in Lincoln is their church. It is a place to go with single-minded fervor. A place to focus on football. And to many, it was a place defiled at a game earlier this month. Here is how the Lincoln Journal Star describes it:     “A highlights video for the Huskers' 1978 conference championship football team appeared on the giant HuskerVision screen inside the stadium. When the logo for the video's sponsor appeared at the beginning and end, people in the stands began booing.     "To me, that was just a real strong gut punch as a Nebraskan," [Nebraska fan Allen] Schreiber said.     To him and others who saw the video titled the "Husker Pipeline," it appeared to be an advertisement for sponsor TransCanada.” Schreiber, who had earlier protested the controversial Keystone XL pipeline being promoted by the video, wasn’t alone in his disdain for the advertisement. University of Nebraska Athletic Director Tom Osborne---himself one of the most revered figures in Cornhusker football history---had this to say:     "We have certain principles regarding advertising in the stadium such as no alcohol, tobacco or gambling advertisements. We also avoid ads of a political nature," he said. "Over the last two or three months, the pipeline issue has been increasingly politicized. Our athletic events are intended to entertain and unify our fan base by providing an experience that is not divisive." Ouch. Well, the pipeline is indeed controversial in Nebraska (and everywhere else) due to very real concerns about the impact it could have on the state. The Huskers shifted into the Big 10 conference this year, where they will play against schools like Illinois and Michigan which represent states that have been dirtied up by tar sands pipeline spills in recent years (heck, a pretty big chunk of the conference has suffered some ugly spill history when you toss Wisconsin and Minnesota in too). Given the strong statement made about TransCanada’s oily Keystone XL ads, I think I might have to start rooting for Nebraska… ...Well, OK, that is a stretch. But I certainly see their football progam in a much more positive light now. 2011-09-15T22:02:00+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/cornell_global_labor_institute_report_shows_keystone_xl_pipeline_is_not_pat http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/cornell_global_labor_institute_report_shows_keystone_xl_pipeline_is_not_pat#When:18:46:20Z This evening, President Obama spoke to the nation about jobs and confirmed that he will not let the economic crisis be used to roll back environmental protections. Hopefully that commitment can translate into increased incentives for clean energy jobs and push back against dirty energy claims that we need to sacrifice our health and environment for jobs. Today, a new report by the Cornell Global Labor Institute made it clear that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would not provide the job and economic security that its proponents have been claiming. Clean energy jobs are the real long-term, secure jobs choice, not dirty energy such as tar sands. This evening, President Obama spoke to the nation about jobs and confirmed that he will not let the economic crisis be used to roll back environmental protections. Hopefully that commitment can translate into increased incentives for clean energy jobs and push back against dirty energy claims that we need to sacrifice our health and environment for jobs. Today, a new report by the Cornell Global Labor Institute made it clear that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would not provide the job and economic security that its proponents have been claiming. Clean energy jobs are the real long-term, secure jobs choice, not dirty energy such as tar sands. Since he first took office, President Obama has brought jobs and environment together in a way that will lead towards economic prosperity: by putting American ingenuity to work to build a clean energy economy. However,  in the wake of the President’s decision to back off of ozone standards and the State Department incorrectly claiming that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would have “no significant impact,” we can only wonder why the President is not pushing even harder to have clean energy replace dirty energy so that America can become a world energy leader. One reason might be the numerous false claims about jobs that the dirty energy industry is spreading. Just recently when I participated in a discussion on NPR with Alex Pourbaix from TransCanada, he claimed that “within days of receiving our presidential permit we will begin to put 20,000 Americans to work building this pipeline. In addition, there’s going to be in excess of 100,000 spin off jobs created by this project.” These numbers are wildly exaggerated in a way that is cruel to people in America’s heartland who need jobs. Today, the Cornell Global Labor Institute issued a report that challenged TransCanada’s claims. The Cornell report points out that TransCanada does not provide a source for the 20,000 jobs number. The “excess of 100,000 spin off jobs” likely comes from the Perryman Group which actually spoke of “person-years of employment” which is not the same thing as individual jobs. The Cornell Global Labor Institute notes the Perryman Group does not document where its data and analysis come from and uses a 100 year time frame to inflate its numbers. The State Department’s own analysis finds that at the most 6,000 jobs will exist from the pipeline – and that not all of these would be new, most would be temporary and only 10-15% would be local. In fact the Cornell report notes that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project might kill more jobs than it creates. The loss of jobs is not something considered in TransCanada’s jobs estimates. But TransCanada itself had said that this pipeline project by diverting oil from the US Midwest to the Gulf Coast would cause oil prices to rise in the Midwest – and rising oil prices can be a job killer. In addition, the Keystone XL pipeline is slated to cross the freshwater supplies of valuable agricultural lands – leaks such as we have seen in TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline could have a devastating effect on agricultural jobs which is the staple for most of America’s heartland. NRDC’s President Frances Beinecke blogged recently that jobs in the clean energy sector are growing – in fact this is one of the few parts of the economy experiencing growth right now and the jobs tend to be long-term, secure jobs. These green jobs are real, the put food on the table and give families the longer-term certainty they need. And the clean energy jobs total more than the jobs from the fossil fuel industry according to a new report by the Brookings Institution. The Obama Administration should not be side-tracked from its focus on clean, long-term, secure jobs creation by wildly inflated claims of the proponent of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The oil companies that stand to profit from this pipeline do not have the American public interest as their interest. The President should focus on the many risks of this pipeline project to our land, waters, health and climate and not let tar sands undermine the growth of our clean energy economy. 2011-09-08T18:46:20+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_a_job_killer_says_cornell http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_a_job_killer_says_cornell#When:18:38:09Z Echoing some of our previous posts, the Cornell Global Labor Institute has just released it’s analysis of the job impacts from the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Their take? It will kill more jobs than it creates. Echoing some of our previous posts, the Cornell Global Labor Institute has just released it’s analysis of the job impacts from the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  Their take?  It will kill more jobs than it creates. Cornell says:     TransCanada and The Perryman Group’s [a TransCanada subcontractor] job estimates do not consider the jobs that might be destroyed as a result of the pipeline and the expanded use of tar sands oil. Here’s the details on the industry’s omissions: 1. FUEL PRICES WILL RISE in 15 midwest states, as a result of the pipeline. TransCanada’s own consultant testified to the Canadian National Energy Board that part of the purpose of the pipeline is to raise the price of heavy crude oil in the midwest. 2. SPILLS WILL BE AN ECONOMIC DRAG. Phase 1 of the Keystone has spilled fourteen times in its first year of operation. Contamination of rivers, drinking water sources and the Ogallala Aquifer in the region threaten the jobs and livelihoods of farmers, ranchers and those working in tourism. 3. JOB LOSS IN CANADA.  Keystone XL will end plans to build ‘upgraders’ in Alberta that were expected to generate 22,000 construction and refinery jobs and arrest tar sands development. Refining capacity in Texas has recently been expanded to accommodate tar sands oil–most of those jobs are now gone from the U.S. economy. 4. MORE HEALTH COSTS FROM POLLUTION.  Keystone XL will raise emissions and reduce air quality in both Canada and the U.S. Treating respiratory and other illnesses incurs economic costs and therefore kills jobs. See the full analysis by clicking here The Obama administration is due to decide by the end of the year whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest.  You can tell President Obama to stop the pipeline and protect the environment from high carbon fuel spills. Take action here! 2011-09-08T18:38:09+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/energy_secretary_makes_the_wrong_decision_on_keystone_xl http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/energy_secretary_makes_the_wrong_decision_on_keystone_xl#When:21:11:48Z Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently followed the State Department's lead, saying that the Keystone XL is "not perfect, but it's a trade off," despite the emphatic thumbs down from the Environmental Protection Agency -- not to mention the fact that it would threaten the water supply of millions of Americans and a cause a major setback to long-term U.S. and Canadian carbon emissions. To say this is a disappointment is an understatement. Last month, the U.S. State Department endorsed the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the massive TransCanada project that will pump 900,000 gallons of tar sands oil from Alberta to Texas refineries. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently followed the State Department's lead, saying that the Keystone XL is "not perfect, but it's a trade off," despite the emphatic thumbs down from the Environmental Protection Agency -- not to mention the fact that it would threaten the water supply of millions of Americans and a cause a major setback to long-term U.S. and Canadian carbon emissions. To say this is a disappointment is an understatement. Secretary Chu -- echoing the "ethical oil" euphemism pushed by the industry -- said in a recent interview that Canada's dirty-energy industry is "making great strides in improving the environmental impact of the extraction of this oil." But he doesn't offer examples. Secretary Chu doesn't have examples because it's false. It's impossible to restore a toxic sludge pit that kills countless birds. And it's impossible to guarantee that the 1,700-mile pipeline will run without hiccups. Just ask the people who live near the existing Keystone 1 pipe and the residents along the Yellowstone River, where clean-up costs have exceeded $42 million. As Secretary of Energy, Chu should be looking at the larger energy security needs of the country. Continuing our oil dependence instead of investing in clean-energy solutions will only deepen our long-term energy security woes. The factories of Detroit, the labs of Silicon Valley, and the wind farms of Iowa and Texas stand ready to take on the new energy challenge. But this will only happen if we make room for a new economy and throw out dirty ideas like the Keystone XL pipeline. Secretary Chu recycles the talking point that Canadian tar sands will diversify oil sources for the U.S. and reduce prices for Americans. But these are mere fantasies. The fact that the pipe will span six states and end in the Gulf of Mexico region suggests that tar sands oil will have a one-way ticket to foreign countries, where oil prices are higher and the profit is easier. Sierra Club Chairman Carl Pope points out: The reality is that this is not an imports scheme, but an exports scam. The US gets the water pollution risk to the Ogallala Aquifer, the private property expropriations in Texas, and the air pollution around the refineries -- plus gasoline prices that may run $0.30/gallon more than they otherwise would. Koch, Valero and their allies get higher profits and greater volume -- because they finally get what they have always wanted, access to the highest price world markets. Does this sound like ethical oil to you? 2011-09-07T21:11:48+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_review_makes_light_of_concerns_about_damage http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_review_makes_light_of_concerns_about_damage#When:18:34:40Z In late August, the State Department issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline (Keystone XL). There is ample evidence that Keystone XL will cause an increase in tar sands oil extraction and the significant harm to climate, wildlife, water and health that come from tar sands strip mining and drilling. The pipeline project will also risk health and safety in the United States through oil spills and water and air pollution. Despite this, the State Department incorrectly found “no significant impact” in their environmental review. The environmental assessment makes several fundamental flaws in their analysis that has led to the illogical conclusion that Keystone XL would not cause significant air, land, and water pollution. In fact, the Keystone XL project will have a significant impact on the environment and public health and is not worth the risks. In late August, the State Department issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline (Keystone XL).  There is ample evidence that Keystone XL will cause an increase in tar sands oil extraction and the significant harm to climate, wildlife, water and health that come from tar sands strip mining and drilling. The pipeline project will also risk health and safety in the United States through oil spills and water and air pollution.  Despite this, the State Department incorrectly found “no significant impact” in their environmental review. The environmental assessment makes several fundamental flaws in their analysis that has led to the illogical conclusion that Keystone XL would not cause significant air, land, and water pollution. In fact, the Keystone XL project will have a significant impact on the environment and public health and is not worth the risks. We have pulled together an overview of our analysis of the FEIS that goes into more detail, but basically, the review can should not be called final as it is still lacking in key areas:     An expert study of the safety impacts of a raw tar sands oil pipeline including the likelihood of spills and difficulties of clean up, despite the high number of leaks from TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline in its first year of operation.     A thorough analysis of the clean energy alternatives to this pipeline.     The proposal of a serious alternative path to the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer. And this at a time when bi-partisan calls to avoid the Ogallala Aquifer and the Nebraska Sandhills are growing stronger. Just in the past week, Nebraska Governor Heineman said that the pipeline should not go through Nebraska and this was echoed by Senator Johanns.     Consideration of the impact on climate change of extracting and ultimately burning tar sands oil to the extent that sparked two weeks of sit-ins and arrests in front of the White House during the final days of August.     Despite a commitment by this Administration to focus on environmental justice, an on-the-ground study of the refinery pollution impacts in Port Arthur and Houston. This latest round of environmental review does not meet the State Department’s own stated goals of being thorough and objective. We are now entering a period where the State Department is consulting on whether this project would be in the national interest. We have also developed an analysis of what the criteria should be for the national interest determination process National interest determination is specific to transboundary pipelines and is supposed to start after the environmental review process is completed so that the issues raised in the environmental review can be part of these considerations. Instead, the State Department is rushing ahead with calling the environmental review final and starting the national interest determination, despite missing key pieces of analysis such as the biological opinion on wildlife impacts from the Fish and Wildlife Service and despite having glossed over many areas of critical concern to the American public such as those mentioned above. The State Department needs to let go of its artificial, self-imposed goal of making a decision about this pipeline project by the end of the year. The stakes are too high to take risks when it comes to public safety and our environment, especially when the clean energy alternatives are actually better for our economy and for our security. We do not need this pipeline and President Obama and Secretary Clinton should deny the permit. But while we are going through the steps of assessing the impacts, saying that there is no significant impact makes light of the very real concerns of the risks to farms, property, drinking water, climate, and health. This Administration should have the courage to do the detailed and expert analysis that the environmental review process demands so that decision-makers can have the best possible information available to them about the risks of this pipeline. 2011-09-07T18:34:40+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/nine_nobel_laureates_urge_president_to_deny_permit_for_tar_sands_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/nine_nobel_laureates_urge_president_to_deny_permit_for_tar_sands_pipeline#When:18:31:01Z “It is your decision to make” That is how the strongly worded letter to the President from nine Nobel Laureates starts. The letter urges the President to deny the permit for a massive tar sands pipeline that would run from Alberta to Texas and over one of the nation’s largest fresh water aquifers. The letter continues: “It is your decision to make” That is how the strongly worded letter to the President from nine Nobel Laureates starts.  The letter urges the President to deny the permit for a massive tar sands pipeline that would run from Alberta to Texas and over one of the nation’s largest fresh water aquifers. The letter continues: “The night you were nominated for president, you told the world that under your leadership – and working together – the rise of the oceans will begin to slow and the planet will begin to heal.  You spoke of a clean energy economy.  This is a critical moment to make good on that pledge, and make a lasting contribution to the health and well being of everyone of this planet.” The letter refers to a major decision that the President will make to approve or disapprove of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which would expand U.S. reliance on the dirtiest oil on the planet at a time when we should be committing ourselves, as the President said, to working together to slow climate change. That the letter is addressed to a Nobel Laureate is also significant. When the Nobel Committee announced  the President’s Nobel Prize, the Committee said, “Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.”  In his speech upon learning he’d won the prize, the President said: “We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities.  And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.” But will he accept the responsibility to transform the way we use energy?  The opening salvo - “It is your decision to make” - reflects the fact that this decision will be his and only his to make. Congress, for a change, has no say in whether the pipeline is approved.  Or will he, in the words of his chief climatologist, James Hansen, “choose the dirty needle with no real intention of solving the addiction.” Recently, James Hansen said that approval of Keystone XL would lead to more exploitation of tar sands oil, which would mean “it is essentially game over” for the climate.  That is because the tar sands reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia. Current production is now at 1.79 million barrels per day.  Projects that have been approved will increase production to nearly 4 million day, and, if all those projects seeking approval or announced by oil companies go forward, production will more than quadruple from today’s levels to over 7 million barrels a day.  And how does this impact the climate? According to the EPA, the emissions impact of the Keystone XL pipeline would be roughly 27 million metric tons of carbon (above emissions from the equivalent amount of conventional oil). This is equal to emissions from 7 coal fired power plants, putting 5 million more cars on the road, or eliminating the emissions savings for EPA’s recent truck efficiency rule towards the end of this decade.  If the oil industry is able to expand tar sands production to as much as 7.6 million barrels per day, and using the same methodology EPA used for Keystone XL, the emissions created from producing this much tar sands would be as much as 228 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually. The U.S. is the only major customer outside of Canada for tar sands oil. To sell all this oil, the industry needs access to an international port. Due to signficant opposition, no pipelines have been approved to Canada’s east or west coasts.  Sadly, both the Administration, in its flawed review of the pipeline, and certain analysts, have blithely accepted the premise –peddled ferociously by the Canadian political leaders (all from Calgary, it should be noted) – that the tar sands oil will be developed regardless of whether Keystone XL goes forward.  This premise falls apart when you dig a little deeper and read the industry’s own appeals for approval of the pipeline. Keystone XL is the only viable prospect for moving tar sands oil into the global market.  Without this market for the land-locked tar sands, most of these expansions would be unlikely to occur. Expansion of the tar sands ultimately means expansion of the oil industry’s power over our political process.  The same forces pushing for the pipeline are also busy attacking the very policies that will reduce carbon in our fuels and our dependence on oil.  In spite of their claims that this pipeline will deliver “energy security from a friendly neighbor,” Canada does not give the U.S. a break when prices are high. True energy security comes from reducing our demand for oil and that will put money back in the pockets of average Americans faster than any tar sands pipeline. So when the President sits down to consider whether this pipeline is “in the national interest”, he’ll have to decide whose side he is on.  And as he considers a response to this letter, he might think back to his own statements as a Nobel Laureate, and ask how he can best play that “constructive role” envisioned for him by a hopeful Nobel Committee back in the heady days of 2009. 2011-09-07T18:31:01+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_makes_history_as_more_than_1000_arrested_in http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_makes_history_as_more_than_1000_arrested_in#When:17:07:50Z The protests have marked a watershed for the environmental community and for civil disobedience as a powerful democratic tool. The number of citizens arrested engaging in peaceful sit-ins at the White House tipped to over 1,000 in the next to last day of the protests. The collective message to the President is that Americans want a secure future – one in which we don’t destroy our lands, pollute our waters and air, and poison communities – to make our energy. A future in which we build-up our communities and increase ecosystem resilience, not tear them down. A future in which we harness energy from the wind and the sun using American know how and technology instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel for our energy. As James Hansen, the President’s chief climatologist said earlier this week before being arrested, we want to find a leader big enough to help us realize our dreams. The protests have marked a watershed for the environmental community and for civil disobedience as a powerful democratic tool.  The number of citizens arrested engaging in peaceful sit-ins at the White House tipped to over 1,000 in the next to last day of the protests.  The collective message to the President is that Americans want a secure future – one in which we don’t destroy our lands, pollute our waters and air, and poison communities – to make our energy.  A future in which we build-up our communities and increase ecosystem resilience, not tear them down.  A future in which we harness energy from the wind and the sun using American know how and technology instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel for our energy.  As James Hansen, the President’s chief climatologist said earlier this week before being arrested, we want to find a leader big enough to help us realize our dreams. Bill Erasmus, Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations, speaking outside White House. Photo credit: Josh Lopez. Bill Erasmus is the National Chief of the Dene Nation living downstream from the tar sands Today was also a watershed as it brought together indigenous leaders from Canada and the United States, many of whom have been on the front lines of the tar sands battle in Canada and along existing pipeline routes in the U.S.  These leaders came to join hands with one another and with newcomers to the battle.  As they spoke, they held beautiful photographs of the natural landscape of their Boreal forest home and horrifying pictures of the tar sands development. In each photo, a person holds the sign, “OBAMA – CHOOSE HOPE NOT TAR SANDS”.    As Naomi Klein, author of the Shock Doctrine, put it today, it is hard to look at the tar sands and allow it to continue.  So we often look away.  These past two weeks have focused the American public as never before on the tar sands.     Certainly, the tar sands debate will never be the same.  I remember when – for me – the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development transformed into the Rio Earth Summit as I looked down in the huge conference hall and saw Ted Turner, Al Gore and the Dalai Lama walking together.  Over the last two weeks, a new or renewed solidarity has been born – between Canadians and Americans, those living downstream from the giant pits and those living along the proposed pipeline path, those in the labor community and those in the environmental community fighting for our planet - as one labor leader put it today, we all have skin in that.  And some big personalities have engaged.   Now the challenge is to take all the energy that has been created and turn it loose on the next and last phase of the Keystone XL pipeline review – the National Interest Determination.  I have huge faith that Bill McKibben and his organization, 350.org, can do it alongside the already large and effective network of groups working on the tar sands.  So here is what we have ahead of us. The State Department must – under an Executive Order that governs the pipeline review process – make an affirmative finding that the pipeline is in the national interest.  Agencies have 90 days to comment on issues related to national interest and to ask for additional analysis so they can make their recommendation to the Secretary of State.  If they ask for additional information, the 90 days is put on hold until that information is generated.  That is why the Administration’s repeated insistence that they will make a decision by the end of the year is contrary to this collective process. And it is why it is important that the Department of Energy clarified in a statement today that the Secretary of Energy has not made a decision about the merits of the pipeline. For cooperating agencies to participate meaningfully, they must have thorough and accurate analysis to weigh what will be many competing arguments.  That thorough and accurate analysis is not available through the FEIS – a highly flawed document written mainly by consultants with a cozy relationship with TransCanada, the company seeking the permit to construct Keystone XL.  For a thorough review, there is a long list of issues that will have to be considered, including:     A robust review of alternatives to the oil the pipeline would import     A review of alternative routes – routes that would avoid the heart of the Ogallala aquifer and other sensitive ecosystems such as the Yellowstone River that just suffered from a major oil spill     A review of the refinery by refinery impacts on already beleaguered communities in the Gulf     An assessment of the impact of this pipeline on moving to a clean energy economy     An assessment of the increased spill and corrosion risks of transporting tar sands bitumen through pipelines (there are no regulations that govern acidic and corrosive bitumen)     An assessment of whether the pipeline will create access to a global market for tar sands oil, undercutting the main argument in defense of this pipeline, namely that it will provide energy security benefits to the U.S. (Oil Change International released an excellent report on this point this week) These analyses, all of which EPA has also asked for, should be generated to uphold the President’s commitment, made clear in a question he fielded at a clean energy event in Pennsylvania earlier this year, that the review be thorough and science-based.  And they should dictate the deadline for making a decision, not an arbitrary end-of-the year date.   In a blog posted yesterday, Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations missed a key point that for all the debate about the Keystone XL, much of this critical analysis is still missing.  Instead he chose to single out statements of pipeline opponents without the larger context.  For instance, he accused NRDC Executive Director Peter Lehner of focusing unduly on the likely export of diesel fuel from Gulf refineries refining Keystone XL oil.  But Lehner’s larger point is that the pipeline will not provide greater “energy security” to the U.S. as its proponents argue.  Instead, Lehner says it will undermine our security because it will compromise our air, water, and clean energy future.  And he points out that those who believe that the pipeline will directly benefit from use of this oil, should think again.  Nit picking aside, how would Levi answer the arguments put forward by the pipeline proponents – does this pipeline really increase U.S. energy security?  Would it lower gas prices?  Would it really protect the U.S. from oil price and political volatility given that the price of oil is set by forces outside of North America anyway?  Based on his previous writing on this issue, I don’t believe even Mr. Levi really believes the answer to these questions is yes. At a time when there is no national climate change legislation, no regulations governing diluted bitumen (the form of tar sands oil to be shipped through the pipeline), and when our global warming emissions have exceeded what the atmosphere can hold without major climate disruption, permitting a pipeline to bring nearly 1 million barrels more a day of the highest carbon oil on the planet to the U.S. Gulf coast, refine it there,  leaving the pollution behind, to potentially be exported as refined products – whether that is gas, diesel, or jet fuel – is clearly not – as Mr. Lehner says - in our national interest. Naomi Klein makes perhaps the most important point - deepening our dependence on tar sands oil is not only an energy issue, it is a values issue. Allowing the tar sands to be extracted, with all the attendant damage to the land and people, warps our values as human beings.  We must keep our gaze on the tar sands destruction.  That’s what the protests have done. They have helped us keep our gaze on what is actually happening on the ground, hard and painful as that is, so we can be motivated to create a better future.   While NRDC does not, as an institution, engage in civil disobedience, the author was arrested with two of her tar sands colleagues on Tuesday on a vacation day.  See NRDC President Frances Beinecke's blog on the arrests here. 2011-09-02T17:07:50+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/nebraska_governor_tells_feds_keystone_xl_route_unsafe http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/nebraska_governor_tells_feds_keystone_xl_route_unsafe#When:17:27:25Z The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline route is unsafe, and the federal government’s environmental risk analysis is wrongly optimistic. That’s the assessment of Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman who today sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline route is unsafe, and the federal government’s environmental risk analysis is wrongly optimistic. That’s the assessment of Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman who today sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He was unusually blunt, having previously avoided taking a firm position. “I am opposed to the proposed route of this pipeline,” he wrote. Regarding the controversial State Department analysis that gave the environmental ‘all clear,’ the governor sided with conservation groups, saying he disagrees with the analysis and it contention that it poses little risk to the Ogallala Aquifer. Read his letter here. NE GOV OPPOSES KXL ROUTE Tar sands are a highly polluting  and destructive fossil fuel mined in Alberta, Canada.  The pipeline would route the fuels under 2,000 miles of the U.S. heartland. 2011-08-31T17:27:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/new_infographic_shows_how_keystone_pipelines_are_built_to_spill http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/new_infographic_shows_how_keystone_pipelines_are_built_to_spill#When:17:08:23Z TransCanada claims their pipelines are the safest in the continent. And the State Department seems inclined to agree having released their Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Keystone XL pipeline last week. They find that the pipeline poses “no significant impacts” to the environment, and advise the project move forward. This Keystone pipeline infographic below shows the spills documented in TransCanada’s publicly released safety records alongside the proposed route for Keystone XL, and indicates key risk areas near waterways and major metropolitan areas. TransCanada claims their pipelines are the safest in the continent. And the State Department seems inclined to agree having released their Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Keystone XL pipeline last week. They find that the pipeline poses “no significant impacts” to the environment, and advise the project move forward. So what about the 12 spills along the Keystone I line in its first year of operation? Since commencing operation in June of 2010, the Keystone I pipeline has suffered more spills than any other 1st year pipeline in U.S. history. In addition to a nasty spill record, the proposed Keystone XL will cross one of the largest aquifers in the world – the Ogallala – which supplies drinking water to millions and provides 30% of the nation’s groundwater used for irrigation. Pipeline construction will also disrupt 20,782 acres, including 11,485 acres of native and modified grassland, rangeland and pastureland, and pipeline construction will threaten sensitive wildlife and aquatic species habitats. According to the EPA, carbon emissions from tar sands crude are approximately 82% higher than the average crude refined in the U.S. Given the extremely toxic nature of tar sands bitumen and the fact that Keystone is TransCanada's first wholly owned pipeline in the U.S., it seems reasonable to look to TransCanada's performance with Keystone I for clues on how it would manage Keystone XL. And the clues are telling. For one, Keystone I is the youngest pipeline to have been considered an immediate threat to life, property and the environment by pipeline safety regulators. This Keystone pipeline infographic  shows the spills documented in TransCanada’s publicly released safety records alongside the proposed route for Keystone XL, and indicates key risk areas near waterways and major metropolitan areas. Check out the infographic, and head over to the Huffington Post to read more. 2011-08-29T17:08:23+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/its_easy_to_find_no_significant_impact_if_you_do_no_significant_study http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/its_easy_to_find_no_significant_impact_if_you_do_no_significant_study#When:16:57:31Z Today, the U.S. State Department released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The State Department’s finding that there will be no significant environmental impact to most resources is completely without merit. Our initial analysis of the environmental review makes one thing clear: it was premature for the Department of State to issue the review. Today, the U.S. State Department released its Final Environmental  Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands  pipeline.  The State Department’s finding that there will be no  significant environmental impact to most resources is completely  without merit.  Our initial analysis of the environmental review  makes one thing clear: it was premature for the Department of  State to issue the review.   The detailed studies needed to fully  demonstrate the need for and evaluate risks of this tar sands  pipeline have not been completed. In fact, the FEIS seems to  ignore information that clearly points more to how the pipeline will  cause an increase to air pollution, greater greenhouse gas emissions and a higher potential for oil spills threatening drinking water resources. What the FEIS should find is that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not worth the environmental and safety risks.  We have better alternatives to meet our transportation needs than dirty tar sands oil from Canada. Unfortunately, Secretary of State Clinton did not fulfill her promise to “leave no stone unturned” and the State Department’s pledge to do a “thorough and objective” assessment. The things missing are all the more glaring because they relate to the issues that have been most controversial and the source of most of the public debate.  It appears the State Department continues to rush the decision on this pipeline manufacturing an urgency that doesn’t exist. While the State Department claims they have exhaustively considered all of the issues, there in fact are gaping holes that have remained with only superficial analysis  since the beginning of the process: We have called on the State Department to have the U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration conduct an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline.  We saw no evidence of this assessment being done and it does not seem to be included in the FEIS.  The review of what diluted bitumen can do to pipelines and in the case of spills is especially critical given there has already been 12 leaks in the first 12 months from TransCanada’s first Keystone tar sands pipeline.  The State Department’s claim that they have enhanced the “overall safety” of the pipeline by requiring “new” and more “stringent” conditions for the project are outrageous.  As my colleague Anthony Swift recently pointed out, these 57 conditions are smoke and mirrors.  There are serious flaws with this argument and most of these conditions are already required by the existing law. The State Department still has not fully considered reasonable alternative routes as requested by seven U.S. Senators that would avoid the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer. If they had, we would have seen some evidence of on-the-ground assessment of other routes. Instead, we fear that as they did in the earlier environmental reviews, the State Department will once again have identified unnecessarily long alternative routes that TransCanada suggested and then dismissed them because of their length. Meanwhile, it has ignored other, shorter routes for the pipeline that avoid the sensitive Sandhills.  As my colleagues Liz Barratt-Brown and Anthony Swift have stated, the State Department has been artificially limiting its choices to longer alternative routes that still puts more of America’s heartland and the Ogallala Aquifer at risk. An investigation of alternative routes seems pretty reasonable---and basic---given the billions of dollars the Ogalalla represents to American agriculture. We find it interesting that the State Department is now committing to have an independent consultant review the Keystone risks assessment.  They acknowledge this could result in changes to the project.  Why would the State Department feel compelled to issue the FEIS without this analysis?  This is yet more evidence that the State Department is rushing this project. We have also not seen evidence of the State Department out in Gulf Coast communities doing an environmental justice study. It seems that once again, the environmental review will fail to assess the critical health and safety issues that local community members in Port Arthur and Houston may face.  The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline may increase toxic air emissions from refineries having a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. The pipeline would bring a steady supply of heavy Canadian crude to local refineries and could act as a major source of carcinogenic air emissions. Just last week, dozens of  members of Congress made a final plea to the State Department to conduct the essential review of the impact of toxic air emissions that was apparently ignored. Given the administration's very public focus on addressing environmental justice issues, a lack of deeper investigation of resulting pollution impacts in the Gulf refining communities is surprising. And on our first review, while the environmental review continues to acknowledge that tar sands oil has higher lifecycle greenhouse emissions than conventional oil, it still incorrectly finds the pipeline will not add to global greenhouse emissions. This is one of the key public concerns about this pipeline and about anything that expands our dependence on tar sands – as seen by the wide range of people willing to risk arrest over the last week in front of the White House. By making this fundamental and mistaken assumption, the FEIS ignores how the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will cause the expansion of tar sands extraction in Canada. While Canada has made an international commitment to reduce its emissions by 17 percent by 2020, it is actually on track for a 7 percent increase in emissions. Tar sands emissions have more than doubled since 1990 and are expected to triple between now and 2020. One of the fundamental flaws in the past environmental reviews that we fear has not been corrected in the FEIS is a total failure to demonstrate the need for the pipeline and consider alternatives to meet America’s energy security.   From the very beginning, the Environmental Protection Agency and others have been calling for the State Department to think about the need for the pipeline in the context of America’s declining demand for oil, the need to shrink oil use with measures such as  more aggressive fuel economy standards and investments in clean energy. The calls for the additional analysis have been made repeatedly over the past year  by the environmental community in 2010 and again in 2011.  In fact, there have been many voices calling for detailed studies including Congress, mayors, the Environmental Protection Agency, landowners, and others.  However, the issuance of the FEIS is far from the end of the entire process for TransCanada.  States along the pipeline path still need to issue the necessary permits and not all of the landowners along the route have settled with TransCanada.  And as required by executive order, the State Department must still consult with other agencies  to determine whether the pipeline serves the national interest and they have committed to a public process of meetings and taking comments. The State Department continues to rush the decision of whether to permit the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, ignoring clear requests from a wide range of interests from all walks of life to ensure the safe operation of the pipeline. Public safety and health, the protection of drinking water for millions of Americans, and the imperative to set America on the right course to combat climate change should be the administration’s top priority.  Helping TransCanada and tar sands producers secure profits is not.  The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not worth the environmental risks. We have cleaner and more secure choices to meet our transportation needs in America. 2011-08-26T16:57:31+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/opposition_to_keystone_xl_pipeline_heats_up http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/opposition_to_keystone_xl_pipeline_heats_up#When:15:37:25Z By now you've probably heard of the arrests of more than 300 protests made in front of the White House. They're out there protesting the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline - and finally the media is starting to take notice. The NY Times ran an editorial against the plan - even The New Yorker had an in-depth piece on the controversy surrounding this pipeline that would import one of the dirtiest fuels on earth - tar sands oil - from Canada into the United States. UPDATE: The U.S. State Department's final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline has been released - and they are endorsing this dirty tar sands oil monstrosity. In their terminology, the State Department "does not regard the No Action Alternative to be preferable to the proposed Project." From earlier: By now you've probably heard of the arrests of more than 300 protests made in front of the White House. They're out there protesting the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline - and finally the media is starting to take notice. The NY Times ran an editorial against the plan - even The New Yorker had an in-depth piece on the controversy surrounding this pipeline that would import one of the dirtiest fuels on earth - tar sands oil - from Canada into the United States. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune was quoted in this article in The Hill about the political implications for President Obama if he approves this controversial project. Of course, big polluters and their supporters are trying to strike back. In one example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is complaining about there not being a groundswell of support for Keystone XL. This fight and its big-polluting-backers will last into the fall when Congress is back in session. A bill backed by Reps Fred Upton and Lee Terry that would expedite the approval of Keystone XL (HR1938) to November 1st of this year passed the House this summer and may move to the Senate as early as September. As we noted with our colleagues in a letter to Congressional reps earlier this summer, this is simply the latest in a series of harmful bills recklessly pushed by Big Oil and its allies in Congress in order to promote the failed energy policies of the past rather than pursuing clean energy solutions that will create jobs, improve our national security, and protect the planet from climate-disrupting pollution. Thankfully, the White House opposes this bill, but now we'd like to see them and the State Department reject Keystone XL all together. As noted before, the opposition to this project is heating up - even a number of labor groups announced their opposition last week. Keystone XL is not about energy security. In addition to its massive pollution and potential leak disasters, it would grant the tar sands industry their first major access to an international shipping port where they can send tar sands across the globe. There is no guarantee this oil will even be used in the United States. From the risks of the pipeline to the Ogallala Aquifer in the central U.S. (which provides drinking water to millions of Americans), to its massive contribution to climate disrupting pollution, to the public health effects on the residents living near the refineries in Texas, to the wild lands, animals, and people threatened by tar sands expansion in Canada – the list goes on and on. We cannot afford to approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. It’s too dirty, too dangerous, and we don't need it. You can learn more in our many previous posts on tar sands and this specific controversial project, or in this great primer by Mother Jones reporter Kate Sheppard, who wisely tweeted late Thursday: "Arrests at WH Keystone XL protest up to 275. Can you imagine how much more coverage this would get if 272 tea partiers had been arrested?" 2011-08-26T15:37:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/enbridge_gateway_shipping_agreements_a_mere_handshake_not_a_binding_commitm http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/enbridge_gateway_shipping_agreements_a_mere_handshake_not_a_binding_commitm#When:18:00:33Z In business, it's generally considered unwise to launch a new product without clear market research showing a strong customer base and high demand. Moving ahead without confidence there's a market for your product would be a recipe for failure. Yet that's where Canadian pipeline company Enbridge seems to be headed with its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would transport bitumen from the oilsands in Alberta to the Pacific Coast near Kitimat, British Columbia. In business, it's generally considered unwise to launch a new product without clear market research showing a strong customer base and high demand. Moving ahead without confidence there's a market for your product would be a recipe for failure. Yet that's where Canadian pipeline company Enbridge seems to be headed with its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would transport bitumen from the oilsands in Alberta to the Pacific Coast near Kitimat, British Columbia. Without binding agreements locking in producers to supply the oil and refiners to get it to market, Enbridge doesn't have the proof of market demand required to build a major new pipeline. Enbridge has promised to demonstrate commercial support for its product before building the pipeline but only after the government has approved it — an unprecedented position that rival companies such as KinderMorgan have been quick to challenge. Precedent agreements are little more than a "good old boy handshake," or a "commitment in principle"In an effort to prove its project is more than a pipe dream, Enbridge announced yesterday that it has secured 'precedent' agreements from Canadian oil producers and Asian markets. But such agreements aren't binding commitments. Former CEO of TransCanada, Hal Kvisle, calls precedent agreements a "good old boy handshake" that are "commitments in principle" — in other words, tentative agreements that can be abandoned if a number of conditions aren't met.  So yesterday's announcement isn't enough to settle the debate over whether there is serious commercial support for the proposed pipeline. Read more on the Pembina Institute website 2011-08-25T18:00:33+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/sending_a_message_to_obama_pipeline_for_tar_sands_oil_is_not_in_americas_in http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/sending_a_message_to_obama_pipeline_for_tar_sands_oil_is_not_in_americas_in#When:16:29:17Z It is the fifth day of the sit-ins at the White House urging President Obama to deny a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Today several environmental leaders and I sent a letter to the President saying that even if our groups do not engage in civil disobedience, we wholeheartedly share the protestors’ position that the proposed tar sands oil Keystone XL Pipeline will take America in the wrong direction. It is the fifth day of the sit-ins at the White House urging President Obama to deny a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Today several environmental leaders and I sent a letter to the President saying that even if our groups do not engage in civil disobedience, we wholeheartedly share the protestors’ position that the proposed tar sands oil Keystone XL Pipeline will take America in the wrong direction. As an organization dedicated to drafting and enforcing the law, NRDC does not take part in civil disobedience. But I have followed the pipeline sit-ins with great interest. NRDC has opposed this pipeline and tar sands development from the beginning, and I am pleased that concern about this unsafe energy source has caught fire across America and ignited this civil protest in Washington.Tar Sands Action Sit-In Environmental activist Bill McKibben organized the two-week long event, and he’s been joined by farmers, ranchers, businesspeople, and landowners who live along the proposed pipeline route. They have traveled from Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Montana because they feel so strongly that the pipeline will endanger their communities. Religious leaders and other concerned citizens from around the country have also come to tell President Obama that the pipeline is bad for America. From all accounts, the protestors have conducted themselves with calm dignity. As many as 220 have been arrested so far, including Gus Speth, a co-founder of NRDC, the former director of President Carter’s Council on Environmental Quality, and the former dean of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University. Before his arrest, Speth told a reporter from Dow Jones that the pipeline would prolong America’s continued reliance on fossil fuels. “If we hook up the Alberta tar sands to America’s insatiable lust of gasoline, I worry you can just kiss the planet good-bye.” I have known Speth and McKibben for years, and I have tremendous respect for them. They have both demonstrated leadership within our movement, and they do so again with this event. I applaud them for acting on their conscience. They know that this pipeline will take America down a dangerous path. Not only does tar sands oil produce three times as much global warming pollution as regular crude, but it is also highly corrosive. Carrying this dirty fuel across six states and the Ogallala Aquifer—the source for fresh water for the American Heartland—is inviting disaster. Last summer, a pipeline carrying tar sands oil exploded in Michigan, contaminating the Kalamazoo River with heavy bitumen that sank to the bottom of the river where it has failed to biodegrade. The EPA says cleaning up the Kalamazoo could take years. The American people do not risk more disasters when cleaner solutions exist. Last month, for instance, President Obama announced new fuel efficiency standards that will reduce our oil use by 3.1 million barrels a day by 2030 and cut automobile carbon emissions in half. They will also save Americans $80 billion a year at the pump. Tar sands oil cannot match any of those achievements. Instead, it locks America into more carbon pollution and increased risk of oil spills. This does not fit in the clean energy future President Obama is trying to build. We hope the President listens to the many people who have risked arrest in order to send him a message: the Keystone XL pipeline is not in America’s national interest. 2011-08-24T16:29:17+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/diary_of_a_bitumen_sit_in http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/diary_of_a_bitumen_sit_in#When:14:57:52Z Sunday high noon, 95 degrees, no shade, and I’m sweating in a black suit over an Obama 08 football jersey in front of the White House. On my right is a genial silver haired fellow who drove from North Dakota with someone from Montana he met on CraigsList. On my right is an earnest middle aged woman who took Amtrak alone up from Georgia. Beyond them are 45 others folks of all ages sitting or standing quietly, wearing Obama buttons and holding signs, waiting to be arrested by a fully armed swat team. Sunday high noon, 95 degrees, no shade, and I’m sweating in a black suit over an Obama 08 football jersey in front of the White House. On my right is a genial silver haired fellow who drove from North Dakota with someone from Montana he met on CraigsList. On my right is an earnest middle aged woman who took Amtrak alone up from Georgia. Beyond them are 45 others folks of all ages sitting or standing quietly, wearing Obama buttons and holding signs, waiting to be arrested by a fully armed swat team. The night before, we were warned that our sit-in against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would land us in jail for at least a night, maybe two.  It‘s more than we had planned for, but when someone tries to intimidate you out of something righteous, the stubborn streak comes out. When the handcuffs come on they are more painful than I expected, and in the paddy wagon we are forced to sit hunched over, the sweat pouring off our faces.  We can’t wait to get the cuffs off and start doing time. But our acceptance of jail time is rewarded by the warden; we pay $100 and are released.  Meanwhile, Bill McKibben, Gus Speth and 65 other Saturday arrestees, who expected only the few hours of custody that we received, are still sleeping on a hard metal platform and subsisting on a thin bologna sandwich every 12 hours.  As I walk out central booking, my fear is that Bill, Gus and the rest, seeing no one join them in jail, will think we chickened out. Turns out they got word from the lawyers that the sit-ins have gone on. By Day 4 some 200 people have been arrested, from Nebraska to Massachusetts, Kentucky to New York, from the Redwood Forests to the Gulf Stream Waters. We’re not doing this because we’re mad at President Obama, but to show him how much we care. Despite the arrests, this is less of an angry protest than a pep rally aimed at pepping up the President. What does make me angry is that this pipeline is a scam. It’s a scam because the Keystone XL proponents – Big Oil and Canadian lobbyists - say the huge carbon emissions of tar sands production are being reduced, when actually they’re increasing. It’s a scam because they say it will benefit US energy security. But the pipeline is designed to fulfill Valero’s ambitions to export diesel, and in any case US oil demand is dropping while domestic supply is strong.  It’s a scam because TransCanada says the pipeline will be safe, when its sister pipeline, Keystone I, has had 12 leaks in just a year of operation. It’s a scam because Big Oil and Canadian lobbyists wildly exaggerate the jobs it will create, while ignoring the fact that the project could kill jobs by raising gas prices in 15 states. It’s a scam because while we all agree that we need to get off oil, this project increases dependence on the dirtiest, highest carbon oil of all. Mr. Obama can bypass the deniers by denying a permit for this scam. But back to sit-ins. The morning after my arrest, I’m back at the scene of the crime, this time cheering on some new friends who have come in from Nebraska to get arrested. It sounds a little crazy, until you realize that this pipeline would run across their land.  Until recently, these folks, like most Americans, had what you might call the “me Tar Sands, you Jane” problem -- they hadn’t even heard of dirty oil from Canada. By now, most Nebraskans know plenty about “The Pipe,” as Keystone XL is called there. And if President Obama does not stand up to Big Oil now, those practiced Corn Huskers for Clean Water will sit down in front of The Pipe before it can be laid. Next time they’ll be angry. 2011-08-23T14:57:52+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_action_begins_in_washington_dc http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_action_begins_in_washington_dc#When:19:52:44Z The Tar Sands Action is underway in Washington DC. 2 weeks of daily sit-ins began today with 70+ arrests at the White House fence. The Tar Sands Action is underway in Washington DC. 2 weeks of daily sit-ins began today with 70+ arrests at the White House fence. Arrestees included Bill McKibben, Dan Choi, Gus Speth, and dozens of committed climate activists from across the country. Protestors are calling on President Obama to reject a permit for they Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which will send 900,000 barrels a day of the world’s dirtiest oil to US refineries, allowing further development of the Alberta tar sands – development which could mean ‘game over’ for the climate in the word’s of NASA’s James Hansen. For photos of the action, visit our Flickr page at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarsandsaction/ For video, visit our YouTube page at: http://www.youtube.com/user/StopKeystoneXL For other updates, follow the Tar Sands Action on Twitter and on Facebook 2011-08-20T19:52:44+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/jobs_claims_for_keystone_xl_dont_stand_up_to_scrutiny http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/jobs_claims_for_keystone_xl_dont_stand_up_to_scrutiny#When:20:23:30Z Canadian oil giants are trading on Americans’ insecurity about the U.S. economy to sell us their risky Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Their job claims amount to little more than snake oil and won’t cure what ails our economy. Today, they got a hand from the American Petroleum Institute (API), which held a tele-press conference to defend TransCanada’s proposed pipeline in advance of the State Department’s release of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project, which is expected any day. Canadian oil giants are trading on Americans’ insecurity about the U.S. economy to sell us their risky Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Their job claims amount to little more than snake oil and won’t cure what ails our economy. Today, they got a hand from the American Petroleum Institute (API), which held a tele-press conference to defend TransCanada’s proposed pipeline in advance of the State Department’s release of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project, which is expected any day. TransCanada, API, and other Keystone XL proponents have had their hands full. They’ve been plagued by repeated spills from TransCanada’s year-old Keystone tar sands pipeline, reports that TransCanada’s land agents have used bullying tactics against farmers and ranchers whose property is crossed by Keystone XL’s proposed route, and statements by TransCanada that Keystone XL would actually increase America’s fuel bill by $4 billion per year. So they’ve turned to playing up one of the issues Americans are particularly sensitive about — jobs. But yet again, TransCanada’s claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. In 2008, a report included in TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department said they anticipate “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline. In 2010, TransCanada put out a press release that said, “During construction, Keystone XL would create 13,000 jobs and further produce 118,000 spin-off jobs.” In 2011, TransCanada put out a fact sheet that said Keystone XL would “create about 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs.” Of course, none of these estimates accounted for the jobs losses that would result from increasing America’s fuel bill by $4 billion per year. Since 2008, there has been a clear upward trend in TransCanada’s jobs claims for Keystone XL. Why? Perhaps because there has also been an upward trend in the amount of opposition TransCanada has encountered to their project. Sure, their initial estimate of 3,500 to 4,200 construction jobs didn’t account for all the indirect and spin-off jobs that would be created to support construction of the pipeline. But a closer look at their analysis reveals gross exaggeration. For example, TransCanada’s Perryman Group report, which has formed the basis for many of their jobs claims, estimated that Keystone XL would create 22,582 retail trade jobs. I’d be very interested to know how 3,500 to 4,200 construction jobs would, in turn, create 22,582 retail trade jobs. And if TransCanada’s track record is any indication, some of the indirect jobs won’t even be American jobs. There are reports that TransCanada’s use of defective steel from India led to their problems with the Keystone tar sands pipeline. In response to all this, Keystone XL proponents could say that at the end of the day, whether it’s 3,500 jobs or 118,000 jobs, the pipeline will create jobs. That’s not good enough.  TransCanada’s inflating jobs claims just deflates Americans’ trust in the Canadian company even more. If we can’t trust TransCanada, why would we allow them to build a risky pipeline across American lands and waters? Investing in domestic clean energy jobs is what Americans need, not polluter snake oil. 2011-08-18T20:23:30+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/national_congress_of_american_indians_opposes_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipelin http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/national_congress_of_american_indians_opposes_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipelin#When:20:21:12Z Today, the nation’s oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), announced their opposition to the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This important announcement adds to the growing chorus of voices across the United States opposed to this pipeline and clearly finds that an additional tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest. Today, the nation’s oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), announced their opposition to the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  This important announcement adds to the growing chorus of voices across the United States opposed to this pipeline and clearly finds that an additional tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest. The NCAI resolution firmly states how Keystone XL is not in the national interest:     ...the United States is urged to reduce its reliance on the world’s dirtiest and most environmentally destructive form of oil – the ‘tar sands’ – that threatens Indian country in both Canada and the United States and the way of life of thousands of citizens of First Nations in Canada and American Indians in the U.S., and requests the U.S. government to take aggressive measures to work towards sustainable energy solutions that include clean alternative energy and improving energy efficiency… Why is the National Congress of American Indians concerned?  Should Keystone XL rupture, it has the potential to impact many tribes and thousands of their individual members.  The resolution says “it is probable that further environmental disasters will occur in Indian country if the new pipeline is allowed to be constructed.”  The NCAI may be rightly concerned about the almost 1 million gallons of tar sands that spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan a year ago, the spill of 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River this summer and the more than 30 leaks from TransCanada’s brand new Keystone pipeline in its first year of operation in the US and Canada. The resolution also expresses solidarity with the Canadian First Nations who have been raising concerns about Keystone XL and tar sands development in the province of Alberta for years. The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in Canada, representing over 630 First Nations communities and more than 700,000 First Nations spoke of concerns about the impact of tar sands development on affected communities:     "The health impacts of the oil sands are a real concern and have been raised in recent studies.  In Canada, we are particularly disturbed by the high rate of cancer in the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and support the call for an independent health study to examine the people there to assess potential health damage from the oil sands." --Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, Assembly of First Nations. President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should pay heed to the voice of tribal governments.  As the NCAI resolution states, there are broader questions about whether Keystone XL is aligned with America’s clean energy future. Shortly, the US State Department will release the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the pipeline.  The question will be whether that environmental review was thorough enough.  But there will also be a new question:  Does Keystone XL serve the national interest?  The National Congress of American Indians will very likely say no. 2011-08-18T20:21:12+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_they_wont_be_going_to_asia_without_keystone_xl http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_they_wont_be_going_to_asia_without_keystone_xl#When:16:36:28Z Alberta and its tar sands oil are landlocked, and without more pipelines to transport them to the either Canadian coast or to the U.S. Gulf coast, that is where the dirty, high-carbon fuel source will stay. All too frequently, industry has tried to “play the Asia card” when talking about Keystone XL. They make the false claim that if Keystone XL is not built, tar sands will be extracted and will be sent to Asia instead. This could not be further from the truth—at the moment it is largely impossible; the infrastructure simply does not exist and is not likely to be built any time soon. Alberta and its tar sands oil are landlocked, and without more pipelines to transport them to the either Canadian coast or to the U.S. Gulf coast, that is where the dirty, high-carbon fuel source will stay. All too frequently, industry has tried to “play the Asia card” when talking about Keystone XL. They make the false claim that if Keystone XL is not built, tar sands will be extracted and will be sent to Asia instead. This could not be further from the truth—at the moment it is largely impossible; the infrastructure simply does not exist and is not likely to be built any time soon. How can this be? There aren’t similar pipelines in Canada? The short answer is no. And the only slightly longer answer is that proposals on the books to link Alberta tar sands operations to the British Columbia coast are facing even bigger hurdles than Keystone XL. The pipeline that thousands are in DC to protest is far more likely to open the Asian markets that Big Oil desperately craves to export what many call “the dirtiest oil on the planet.” Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, and its associated tanker traffic through sensitive British Columbia Coastal waters, faces tremendous opposition – especially by First Nation groups, who have the legal authority to block a pipeline that traverses their lands and waters. Their resistance has been fierce and continuous – the following are just some select examples of their opposition and is not a complete list:     On March 23, 2010, British Columbia First Nations of the Central and North Pacific Coast issued a declaration banning tar sands crude oil tanker traffic from traveling through their territories. West Coast Environmental Law’s Legal Comment on Coastal First Nations Declaration explains that “Coastal First Nations have the right to issue a ban on crude oil tankers in their waters, based in their own ancestral laws, in Canadian constitutional law, and in international law” and that they can “take steps to enforce their declaration under their own laws, through the Canadian courts, and/or through legal action at the international level.”     On December 2, 2010, a group of 61 First Nations whose lands and waters would be threatened or traversed by the Northern Gateway Pipeline released the Save the Fraser declaration, which includes the following text: “Therefore, in upholding our ancestral laws, Title, Rights and responsibilities, we declare: We will not allow the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, or similar Tar Sands projects, to cross our lands, territories and watersheds, or the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon.”     Also in December 2010, a group of First Nations publicly rejected a 10% equity stake in the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. This would be a LOT of money for the First Nations and is a strong indication that they are not going to be bought.     In May this year, a group of First Nations people protested outside the Enbridge shareholder meeting in Calgary.     Last month, 35 Dene chiefs  came out publicly opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. The Northern Gateway Pipeline is far from a done deal. Other proposed pipeline projects to either coast of Canada are further behind and will face equal if not greater opposition as they move through their permit decision processes. Some have postulated that the Gateway Pipeline doesn’t even make economic sense for Asia, which currently does not have the capacity to refine large quantities of bitumen from the tar sands – and that the main reason for the proposal is to put pressure on the State Department to approve Keystone XL. Keystone XL may be industry’s first shot at accessing a global market for tar sands. There is no mechanism in place to keep the oil in the U.S. and we are now an overall exporter of finished petroleum products. So, after putting landowners like Randy Thompson and David Daniel at risk, and after being processed by community-polluting refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, oil companies will be able to ship the tar sands that is sent through Keystone XL just about anywhere in the world. The State Department has said that they plan to issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement this month for Keystone XL, which will trigger the beginning of the 90-day “National Interest Determination” period. It looks like this National Interest Determination period will begin during two weeks of daily sit-ins in front of the White House – organized by Bill McKibben – designed to show President Obama that Keystone XL is not in the national interest. The protesters should be asking this question of everyone who they speak with: “In whose interest would this pipeline be built?” It seems to me that landowners and farmers get to risk their lands – while oil men in Canada reap the profit of selling their particularly climate-changing product to markets in China and India. That doesn’t sound like energy security to me…more like profit security and climate insecurity. Say no to Keystone XL at www.stoptar.org. 2011-08-18T16:36:28+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/breaking_ethical_oil_campaign_uses_stolen_faked_photos http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/breaking_ethical_oil_campaign_uses_stolen_faked_photos#When:16:24:21Z Canadian Conservative acolyte Alykhan Velshi made headlines last month with a set of bombastic ads contrasting the virtues of Canada’s “ethical oil” with the evils of “conflict oil countries.” Leading political heavyweights — including Environment Minister Peter Kent — have also adopted the mantra. But a look behind the latest “ethical oil” campaign raises a number of ethical questions about Velshi himself. Canadian Conservative acolyte Alykhan Velshi made headlines last month with a set of bombastic ads contrasting the virtues of Canada’s “ethical oil” with the evils of “conflict oil countries.” Leading political heavyweights — including Environment Minister Peter Kent — have also adopted the mantra. But a look behind the latest “ethical oil” campaign raises a number of ethical questions about Velshi himself. First, he lied. The Globe and Mail reported (based on Velshi’s assertion, I suppose) that one of the most shocking photos in the set “is a woman being stoned in Iran in the late 1970s.” That’s not true. In fact, the woman shown is actress Smadar Monsinos, a resident of Amsterdam. The photo is a still from the short 1994 Dutch indy film “De Steen” by Mahnaz Tamizi. The blog Sadly No made this discovery in 2007 after the photo began appearing in posters promoting David Horowitz’s “Islamo-Faschism Awareness Week.” Velshi also exploited. Adjacent to Ms. Monsinos is a photo of a beaming Melissa Blake, Mayor of Wood Buffalo, Alberta. Asked recently whether she was consulted about her portrayal in the ads, she replied “I was never even asked!!! I’m not at all pleased about it. I cringe when I see it.” He also stole. At least three of the other photos in the set were taken by internationally recognized photographers and used without permission. The Nigeria photo was taken by Ed Kashi, an award-winning photojournalist. The Darfur photo was taken in 2004 by Lynsey Addario, one of the world’s leading photojournalists. A true hero, she was one of three journalists held captive for six days in Libya earlier this year. Agents for both photographers confirmed in a phone interview last week that they are considering taking legal action against the illegal use of the photographs. And while the the agent for Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist John Moore was unavailable, I’m betting his Saudi Arabia photo was also stolen. The tar sands lobby is lying to us. I’m no ethicist, but representing fiction as fact, exploiting public figures, and stealing intellectual property seems pretty wrong to me. It’s wrong like setting up fake Twitter accounts is wrong. Like spreading misinformation on oil prices and mid-east oil imports is wrong. But that’s their game plan: label tar sands opponents as terrorists and strong-arm the President into locking the US and Canada into the dead-end energy strategy of boiling oil from sand. Please join us this month as we demand action from President Obama to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. 2011-08-16T16:24:21+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/clean_energy_is_path_for_security_not_the_proposed_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pi http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/clean_energy_is_path_for_security_not_the_proposed_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pi#When:16:00:51Z The August 13 Washington Post editorial (Oil pipeline politics) diagnoses the problems with tar sands and then gets the solution wrong. The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will take us in the wrong direction, making global warming worse and bringing additional dangers of oil spills to America’s heartland. The United States is the main market for the bitumen that is strip-mined and drilled from under Canada’s Boreal forest. Despite Canadian claims that they’ll sell tar sands to China if we don’t take it, not only are there no major pipelines to the Canadian coasts, but opposition to these pipeline proposals is fierce. The August 13 Washington Post editorial (Oil pipeline politics) diagnoses the problems with tar sands and then gets the solution wrong. The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will take us in the wrong direction, making global warming worse and bringing additional dangers of oil spills to America’s heartland. The United States is the main market for the bitumen that is strip-mined and drilled from under Canada’s Boreal forest. Despite Canadian claims that they’ll sell tar sands to China if we don’t take it, not only are there no major pipelines to the Canadian coasts, but opposition to these pipeline proposals is fierce. Instead of providing energy security, the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will give oil companies a Gulf Coast deepwater port for export and raise gas prices in the Midwest. After a summer of droughts and heat waves, we need to be working harder than ever to reduce our demand for oil. With fuel efficiency standards and cleaner ways to move people around, America can be a leader in clean energy rather than giving into our oil addiction. That is the path of true energy security. The Washington Post editorial infers that Canada only needs to open the spigot and tar sands oil will flow to China instead of the United States.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  The prospect of tar sands oil flowing to China is more than a decade away, if it ever happens. As of now, there are no major pipelines to the Canadian coasts for tar sands. There is fierce opposition from First Nations, landowners, policy-makers and many others to the dangers of pipeline oil spills and to opening fragile coastal waters to large oil tanker traffic.  Ironically, it is the Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf Coast that would provide tar sands oil with its first major deepwater port. The fact is that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will put U.S. lands and waters at risk without guaranteeing security of oil supply from Canada. Once tar sands reaches the Gulf Coast's robust oil transportation network, it can go anywhere in the world.  Instead, of energy security, what we have is the pipeline company’s own assertion that 10 states in the U.S. Midwest will see increased gas prices at a time when our economy is on very shaky ground. The governments of Canada and Alberta would like nothing more than for Americans to think they have other customers in play for their controversial tar sands product.  Canada knows very well that America is and will remain the export market for Canada which is why they have been lobbying the U.S. government so intently for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  Despite strong messaging from Big Oil, this pipeline has nothing to do with energy security and everything to do with sweetening oil company profits by giving them access to the foreign markets they so desperately desire. Reminders of climate change are all around us these days. Here in DC we’ve seen record temperatures this summer and the U.S. south has suffered the worst drought since the dust bowl. In fact, globally, violent storms have put the first half 2011 into first place in terms of financial losses which reached $265 billion – of that $27 billion in the United States. Energy security has to mean more than getting oil from an ally such as Canada. It has to mean long-term security that we can only find by ending our dependence on oil, fighting climate change and becoming a leader in clean energy solutions. A recent U.S. Defense Department statement rightly found that U.S. dependence on non-renewable fuels such as tar sands “degrades our national security, negatively impacts our economy, and harms our planet.” The good news is that America is on a path to stabilize our oil use and global warming pollution in the transportation sector for the near-term, assuming fuel intensity does not increase. NRDC’s analysis shows that by 2025, the U.S. can reduce oil use by over 4 million barrels per day (mbd), consistent with the President’s pledge to reduce oil use by about 3.7 mbd, within the same timeframe. Deeper cuts – 7 mbd – are possible by 2030. We do not have an ever-escalating need for more oil pipelines such as the proposed Keystone XL project and we can offset our oil use already now in the short-term. 2011-08-16T16:00:51+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/spirit_bear_the_return_of_an_elusive_icon http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/spirit_bear_the_return_of_an_elusive_icon#When:16:28:20Z To the Gitga’at First Nation and the Kitasoo/Xai’xais of Canada it has been taboo to hunt or even speak the name of the elusive spirit bear, or Kermode, for many generations. Neither albino nor polar bear, the vanilla-colored bear is actually a white version of the North American black bear, found almost exclusively in Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest, one of the largest coastal temperate rain forests in the world. To the Gitga’at First Nation and the Kitasoo/Xai’xais of Canada it has been taboo to hunt or even speak the name of the elusive spirit bear, or Kermode, for many generations. Neither albino nor polar bear, the vanilla-colored bear is actually a white version of the North American black bear, found almost exclusively in Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest, one of the largest coastal temperate rain forests in the world. For more than 15 years conservationists and Canada’s First Nations fought the battle against logging interests to protect spirit bears and the wild stretch of western red cedar, hemlock, and spruce forest that makes up their habitat. The 250 mile stretch of British Columbia’s coast is also home to whales, wolves, sea lions, star fish and salmon, not to mention humans. But now a new threat has arisen and the rare spirit bear has been forced once more out of hiding to emerge as an icon for the mysterious rainforest. Canadian oil giant Enbridge (sound familiar? Think Michigan…) wants to build the Northern Gateway project, an oil pipeline that would turn the waters of BC into a supertanker expressway from Alberta to Kitimat and then on to Asian markets. The project would transport half a million barrels a day of the dirtiest oil in the world across the rocky mountains and the coast mountain range, over some of the world’s most productive salmon rivers and a coastline of protective coral reefs. Canada Joins Big Oil? A recent spread in National Geographic discussed why oil sands, or tar sands, are a danger to the Great Bear Rainforest:     “With the Northern Gateway proposal, the Gitga’at and the rain forest that surrounds them have been caught up in a great geopolitical oil game. The Northern Gateway isn’t just a pipeline. It’s Canada’s bid to become a global player in the petroleum market.” But who will bear the consequences of Canada’s new status as a petro state? The far reach of Canadian tar sands should be of greater international concern. Falls spring fed by Ogallala Aquifer, via kitway/Flickr The U.S. has begun its own tar sands battle against TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, plans are currently being assessed for environmental and safety impacts by the State Department. This massive pipeline would deliver 900,000 barrels a day of this toxic oil from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. It would not only result in higher gas prices for many Americans, but also endanger America’s agricultural heartland, home to sage grouse, walleye, and aquifers and rivers that supply our drinking water. NWF senior vice president Jeremy Symons warned: “Keystone XL will turn the U.S. into the middlemen of world dirty fuels market. We inherit the risks and higher costs while Canadian oil giants reap the rewards. The real answer is homegrown U.S. clean energy that creates jobs and makes us energy independent.” In response to Enbridge’s offers of partnership and financial incentives,  Gitga’at council member Cameron Hill said:“Buy in? Buy in to what—to selling our way of life? We live off food from the land and sea here. We’ve been taught to respect what we take. That’s sustained us from time immemorial. No amount of money can make us change our position.” We need to look closely at what extracting oil from the tar sands is doing not just to Canada and the U.S. but to the health of the planet. If we let our addiction to oil dictate our energy policy, spirit bears and other wildlife that flourish in the biologically diverse depths of the Great Bear Rainforest may vanish into the realm of mythology for good. 2011-08-12T16:28:20+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/opposing_exxons_megaload_shipments_proving_that_goliath_can_be_stopped http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/opposing_exxons_megaload_shipments_proving_that_goliath_can_be_stopped#When:12:30:25Z An interesting report emerged today regarding Exxon’s scheme to send “Megaload” tar sands mining equipment through the wild and scenic regions of Idaho and Montana. The item, an article from the industry focused website Industrial Fuels and Power, reported that the costs for Exxon’s Imperial Oil Kearl Oil Sands Project has increased to nearly $11 billion from an original company estimate of $8 billion (in Canadian $’s or CAD). The cause for this nearly $3 billion increase is more than partly attributable to the delays with the Megaload shipments. Without the mining equipment, it is looking increasingly difficult for Exxon to stick to the original plan for their tar sands expansion plans in Alberta:An interesting report emerged today regarding Exxon’s scheme to send “Megaload” tar sands mining equipment through the wild and scenic regions of Idaho and Montana. The item, an article from the industry focused website Industrial Fuels and Power, reported that the costs for Exxon’s Imperial Oil Kearl Oil Sands Project has increased to nearly $11 billion from an original company estimate of $8 billion (in Canadian $’s or CAD). The cause for this nearly $3 billion increase is more than partly attributable to the delays with the Megaload shipments. Without the mining equipment, it is looking increasingly difficult for Exxon to stick to the original plan for their tar sands expansion plans in Alberta: “The problems with Kearl stem back to 2007-08 when Imperial made a decision to have giant modules made in South Korea, shipped to the Port of Vancouver, barged to Lewiston, Idaho, then trucked up through Idaho, Montana and up into Canada – simple…Imperial’s plan looks to have gone “belly up” as the final leg has been dogged with problems. Imperial thought it would easily get permits to shift the giant loads up highway 12, a backdrop of outstanding natural beauty and the setting of the film “A river runs through it.” But this has not proved to be the case and Imperial has faced a fierce battle at almost every turn. Opposition to the mammoth oil sands loads has been fierce from environmental groups, local people and local authorities. Imperial, in the absence and availability of a plan B has now taken to dismantling the modules into smaller loads so they can be trucked up to Edmonton, Alberta and reassembled at an estimated cost of CAD500,000 a module.” Today’s report follows a recent ruling by a Montana state judge that maintains a temporary injunction preventing Exxon from transporting Megaload shipments through the state. The court decision indefinitely delays Exxon’s plans until a number of outstanding environmental issues are resolved. What is remarkable about this latest news regarding the Megaload scheme is that Exxon, in all of its considerable arrogance, seemingly assumed that turning one of the most wild and scenic parts of the United States into an industrial transportation corridor was a fait accompli. But while developing these plans in secret, Exxon incomprehensibly failed to grasp how beloved this area is. Nor did they even appreciate, in a technical sense, how utterly incompatible this transportation proposal was in a region that only has one isolated and narrow high mountain pass, “The lesson to be learned here is that Imperial seems to have made a plan without a viable alternative and looks to have resorted to crisis management on the ground to try and salvage something.” While the fight to stop Exxon is far from complete, if there is another take-home lesson from these events, it’s that citizens can rise up and put a stop to these terrible schemes. Notably, NRDC members and activists have sent in thousands of letters and emails, and made countless calls to government officials voicing their opposition—and we have received direct feedback from a number of these officials that these messages were heard “loud and clear.” Furthermore, not enough can be said about the local citizens and organizations in Idaho and Montana, along with their attorneys, who went out on a limb to risk all in opposing Exxon. The fight to conserve our resources is a seemingly perpetual one, but the latest news about Exxon’s Megaloads shows that these types of fights are definitely worth the effort. 2011-08-09T12:30:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/officials_acknowledge_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_skipped_on_safety http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/officials_acknowledge_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_skipped_on_safety#When:19:08:25Z Emerging from talks with Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird late this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the State Department is getting ready to approve the dirtiest, largest pipeline ever to be built in the U.S. The diplomatic-speak whereby Mr. Baird said he wanted a fast decision, while Mrs. Clinton said they had agreed to some safety enhancements seemed to signal the permit process is drawing to a close.House and Senate Make Hopeful Progress Amidst Rash of Spills Emerging from talks with Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird late this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the State Department is getting ready to approve the dirtiest, largest pipeline ever to be built in the U.S. The diplomatic-speak whereby Mr. Baird said he wanted a fast decision, while Mrs. Clinton said they had agreed to some safety enhancements seemed to signal the permit process is drawing to a close. NWF senior vice president Jeremy Symons said, “The Canadian government seems to have more say in this dirty tar sands pipeline decision than the Americans who are at put at risk by this pipeline. The State Department hasn’t allowed the U.S. citizens who oppose the pipeline to talk to Sec. Clinton, but the Canadian government appears to have unlimited access on behalf of their oil companies.” The news comes as long sought after reforms to improve pipeline safety seems to be moving forward in Congress. A rash of major spills and explosions may be responsible for some rare bipartisan agreement on the failings of the current safety laws and regulations in place. Pipeline Safety Bill Advances in Congress It took several serious ruptures, contamination and evacuations, but finally, Congress is moving to tighten up on pipeline safety. Over two million miles of oil and gas pipelines crisscross the country, many of them unseen underground. Pipeline breaks have dumped spills into the Yellowstone and Kalamazoo Rivers and in Alaska and in San Bruno, California, for example. One bill would require gas line operators to document their maximum allowable operating pressures, a key factor in the San Bruno accident. The bills include tougher requirements for pipelines crossing waterways to address some of the weaknesses that led to the Yellowstone River spill and generally the bills would strengthen the mapping of pipelines and the notification of accidents to state and local governments and emergency responders. One bill would require records of all inspections. They would increase penalties for safety violations. The House bill was crafted in a rare bipartisan negotiation between Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI) and John Dingell (D-MI), which stands as a good symbol of how Congress should work. After all, environmental protection shouldn’t be a partisan or ideological issue. It’s nice to have some good news from the Congress. These bills would give millions of Americans more assurance that their water supplies and property will not be harmed by an oil or gas spill from a broken pipeline. They will push the Department of Transportation to beef up enforcement sand spur improvements in technology and training that could stop leaks from occurring and attenuate the damage if they do. Keystone XL Project Would Harm Energy Security The bill stands in contrast to recently approved House legislation perversely called the “North American-Made Energy Security Act” that requires the Obama administration to expedite its decision-making on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. As we’ve said before, if approved Keystone XL will carry one of the dirtiest, highest polluting fuels ever through the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico for export. Mr. Baird and other supporters have provided no guarantees the energy would be used in America. If anything, the industry has issued documents suggesting they want to move supply away from Americans and to ports that would ship the heavy crude to places like China and India. The result: higher gas prices for many Americans. The bill amounts to an unnecessary, ill-conceived ploy that could force a precipitous decision without solid facts. NWF Pushes for a Stronger Bill Groups like the National Wildlife Federation are working to see that the final pipeline safety bill requires studies to determine the full impacts of transporting tar sands oil through pipelines – even when a spill occurs. Once those studies are done, appropriate regulations are needed to ensure that pipelines are built to withstand the corrosive and unstable nature of tar sands sludge and oil. Until a thorough study of this product is done and until proper regulations are in place, Congress should not be jamming through the legislative process a bill to force a premature, ill-informed decision on questionable polluter projects like Keystone XL. 2011-08-05T19:08:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/breaking_tar_sands_pipeline_backers_resort_to_fake_twitter_accounts_to_show http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/breaking_tar_sands_pipeline_backers_resort_to_fake_twitter_accounts_to_show#When:19:33:25Z The office of a former Nebraska Senator working for the American Petroleum Institute appears to have set up more than a dozen fake Twitter accounts to promote the KeystoneXL tar sands pipeline.The office of a former Nebraska Senator working for the American Petroleum Institute appears to have set up more than a dozen fake Twitter accounts to promote the KeystoneXL tar sands pipeline. Followers of the #tarsands hashtag on Twitter may have noticed a strange spike in posts yesterday morning. Within three minutes, fifteen accounts (here’s the list the list has since grown) all posted the message “#tarsands the truth is out! [link]” linking to API’s web page about oil sands. Then came another post from the same accounts, this time linking to the Nebraska Energy Forum, one of 26 state-based-front-groups sponsored by API in the lead up to the 2012 election. Then a flurry of posts late last night from those same accounts, all linking to a post on “publicaffairsinformant.com” touting KeystoneXL and linking back to the Nebraska Energy Forum. WTF? Let’s connect the dots. First, fourteen of those accounts are clearly fake. The simultaneous posts were all sent via the “Netvibes Official Widget” that allows users to post to multiple Twitter accounts at the same time. All fourteen accounts were established in the same week in July, most on the same day. Each of their avatars appear to have been pulled from the web. One was pulled from NebraskaDUILawyers.com. All use variations on very simple names (jimjohnson16, richhoward1) and have very similar “everyperson” type descriptions (“Environmentally and economically concerned citizen looking for real facts. We need to make wise choices in during these uncertain times [sic]“), and all tend to retweet one another, bombard journalists with favorable opinions on the KeystoneXL pipeline, and generally cheerlead for tar sands. The fifteenth account is kbockmann aka Keith Bockmann aka kbdank, a party boy from Omaha who established that publicaffairsinformant.com website on July 15th. Here’s where it gets interesting: Keith also registered abboudlawfirm.com, an Omaha-based law firm. He describes himself as a paralegal and is a friend of Greg Abboud on Facebook. Greg’s partner at Abboud Law Firm is Chris Abboud, the former Nebraska Senator, whom I presume to be Greg’s brother. Chris, meanwhile, is also a tobacco lobbyist and “Grassroots Coordinator for the Nebraska Energy Forum.” And finally, the maiden name of Greg wife appears to have been Bockmann (not hard to figure out, but I won’t implicate her with links here). So to recap: It looks very much like the “grassroots” being coordinated by Chris Abboud are the fabrications of his employee and nephew, Keith Bockmann. If you’re on Twitter, drop @kbockmann a line. Let’s see if he continues to defend his “real supporters.” You may also want to drop the Omaha Police Union a line to let them know their what their $10K/month lobbyist is doing on the side. From August 20 – September 3, concerned people from across the continent — students, scientists, Indigenous peoples, church groups, environmentalists, parents, celebrities, and more — are gathering in Washington for a mass act of civil disobedience at the White House. Over 1,500 individuals are already registered to join this wave of sustained sit-ins to send a clear message to the President: The People are saying NO to the 2000-mile climate-destroying Keystone XL pipeline. If you’ve had it with climate change and astroturf stunts like this, and are ready to engage in a new level of community activism, you can register to join the action at TarSandsAction.org. 2011-08-04T19:33:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/dont_let_industry_public_relations_oil_the_waters_on_the_dangers_of_tar_san http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/dont_let_industry_public_relations_oil_the_waters_on_the_dangers_of_tar_san#When:19:20:25Z This week Reuters reported that the oil industry couldn’t see much difference between raw tar sands oil (diluted bitumen) and conventional oil. This is hardly surprising considering that industry’s interest in obscuring the potential dangers of raw tar sands oil from the public. Concerns about pipeline safety – especially when it comes to pipelines transporting tar sands oil – have been heard throughout North America this year. The list of pipeline accidents that have caught the public’s attention is long. This week Reuters reported that the oil industry couldn’t see much difference between raw tar sands oil (diluted bitumen) and conventional oil. This is hardly surprising considering that industry’s interest in obscuring the potential dangers of raw tar sands oil from the public. Concerns about pipeline safety – especially when it comes to pipelines transporting tar sands oil – have been heard throughout North America this year. The list of pipeline accidents that have caught the public’s attention is long. It includes the nearly 1 million gallons of tar sands oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan a year ago, the spill of over 40,000 gallons of oil into the wild Yellowstone River this summer, and the over 30 leaks from TransCanada’s brand new Keystone pipeline in its first year of operation in the US and Canada. So, it is hardly surprising that the oil industry is pushing back with a public relations offensive. But public relations will not get the public the information it needs about what is in our pipelines. Public relations will not prevent spills into our rivers and aquifers. And public relations will not ensure effective clean up. What we need is a detailed study of the characteristics of diluted bitumen, what it means for pipelines and what it means for clean up when a spill occurs. Then we need to revisit our pipeline safety regulations to prevent spills, but also to make sure there is greater public transparency and information about what flows through our pipes. The engineers quoted in the Reuters article themselves showed surprise (shared by us at NRDC) that there were not clear studies on the nature of diluted bitumen and what it might mean to the inside of a pipe in terms of corrosion. In fact, the Canadian National Energy Board engineer consulted said he would be interested to see a study on this issue. Given that diluted bitumen is flowing in increasing quantities in U.S. pipelines, it is reasonable to request an independent study on what the characteristics of diluted bitumen in a high pressure, high temperature pipeline can mean in terms of the potential for leaks and spills. The industry often says that they have an interest in preventing pipeline spills. However, they also have an interest in minimizing the costs of construction, materials and operation of their pipelines while maximizing oil flow. Unfortunately, it seems that safety often suffers in this balancing exercise. Certainly a company such as TransCanada that claims the over 30 spills in its first year of operating the Keystone pipeline are “business as usual” seems to be choosing short-term profit over safety. The industry can go after certain points in NRDC’s report on tar sands pipeline safety risks, but it cannot deny that there are many credible indicators that diluted bitumen may cause more pipeline leaks. For example, the NRDC report used refineries as one indicator because that is one of the few places where there is data on the characteristics of diluted bitumen. Contrary to what some industry voices claim, refineries do make a good indicator of problems with corrosion of diluted bitumen. Diluted bitumen is processed before going into a refinery to make it less corrosive, yet even with this step, refineries are built and monitored with the risk of corrosion in mind. Long distance pipelines such as the Keystone, the Alberta Clipper and the proposed Keystone XL pipelines receive diluted bitumen before they have gone through preliminary processing and while they still contain high quantities of salts, water and particles. In an ideal world, industry would put public safety as its highest priority. However, in the real world, we need ways to deal with the safety risks of diluted bitumen in a pipe before we let it travel across our rivers and aquifers. There are good indications that diluted bitumen is more likely to leak from pipelines than conventional oil. What we need is a thorough, independent evaluation, new regulations and better public transparency and information. It makes sense to understand the risks and protect against them before building yet another diluted bitumen pipeline such as TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The Yellowstone River and the Ogallala Aquifer should not serve as a “test case” for understanding the safety risks of tar sands pipelines. 2011-08-04T19:20:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/top_scientists_to_president_tar_sands_oil_does_not_make_sense_to_exploit http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/top_scientists_to_president_tar_sands_oil_does_not_make_sense_to_exploit#When:19:53:25Z In a letter released today, twenty top scientists wrote to President Obama to ask him to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, the 1,700 mile-long fuse that, if lit, could help ignite climate chaos.In a letter released today, twenty top scientists wrote to President Obama to ask him to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, the 1,700 mile-long fuse that, if lit, could help ignite climate chaos. If built, the pipeline would carry bitumen from Canada to the Gulf Coast, putting fresh water supplies at risk and further increasing our dependance on oil at a time when we should be investing in clean energy sources. The letter, signed by Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Michael Mann and other prominent scientists, is a powerful reminder of the choices that now confront us: Will we continue to develop sources of energy from fossil fuels, essentially choosing to double down on the dirty and dangerous technologies that have led us to the brink of catastrophe? Do we have the resolve and the vision to build a better energy system fueled by clean sources of energy that don’t pollute our communities and damage our shared climate? And do we want to leave a legacy of pollution for the generations to come? The 1,500 people who have registered for the Tar Sands Protest in August have collectively answered those questions by saying that they’re ready for a world powered by clean energy. You can find out more information here. The full letter is available here. President Obama: We are researchers at work on the science of climate change and allied fields. We are writing to add our voices to the indigenous leaders, religious leaders, and environmentalists calling on you to block the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada’s tar sands. The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, but one that does not make sense to exploit. It takes a lot of energy to extract and refine this resource into useable fuel, and the mining is environmentally destructive. Adding this on top of conventional fossil fuels will leave our children and grandchildren a climate system with consequences that are out of their control. It makes no sense to build a pipeline system that would practically guarantee extensive exploitation of this resource. When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the Earth’s climate system and to its oceans. Now that we do know, it’s imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy — and that we leave the tar sands in the ground. We hope those so inclined will join protests scheduled for August and described at TarSandsAction.org. If the pipeline is to be built, you as president have to declare that it is “in the national interest.” As scientists, speaking for ourselves and not for any of our institutions, we can say categorically that it’s not only not in the national interest, it’s also not in the planet’s best interest. 2011-08-03T19:53:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/joint_review_panel_has_asked_enbridge_to_provide_preliminary_abandonment_pl http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/joint_review_panel_has_asked_enbridge_to_provide_preliminary_abandonment_pl#When:20:03:25Z The Joint Review Panel (NEB and CEAA) considering the application by Enbridge for the Northern Gateway pipeline project has requested the following information from the proponent on the issue of pipeline abandonment:The Joint Review Panel (NEB and CEAA) considering the application by Enbridge for the Northern Gateway pipeline project has requested the following information from the proponent on the issue of pipeline abandonment: Request: a) Please provide a preliminary abandonment plan for the Northern Gateway Project, including: a.1) a description of what pipeline components would be removed, reused or left in place and provide the rationale for doing so. Where site specific situations require special methodology, then details should be provided; a.2) the reclamation objectives or principles to be applied to abandonment; and a.3) sufficient information to demonstrate that abandonment of the project will return the right of way to a state comparable with the surrounding environment. b) Regarding consultation on eventual abandonment with stakeholders including potentially affected landowners and aboriginal groups, and other authorities and agencies, provide: b.1) a summary of the consultation that has occurred, and b.2) the strategy and processes for future consultation as the abandonment plan is refined. c) Provide an estimate in 2010 dollars of the total cost to abandon the system, using Base Case components (as described in reference iv), or other better information available to Northern Gateway. If information other than Base Case components is relied on, provide an explanation as to why that information was used. d) Explain the source of revenue that Northern Gateway will use to fund this liability. If the source is shipper tolls, provide an estimate of the impact on revenue requirement. 2011-08-02T20:03:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/a_year_after_pipeline_spill_tar_sands_oil_still_plagues_a_michigan_communit http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/a_year_after_pipeline_spill_tar_sands_oil_still_plagues_a_michigan_communit#When:02:07:25Z For a year now, Marshall, Michigan, has resembled a town under siege. Orange and yellow booms stretch across the Kalamazoo River, and warning signs tell swimmers and boaters to stay out of Morrow Lake, a popular fishing spot, “due to ongoing oil spill response." Residents have grown accustomed to the constant hum of helicopters and the sight of airboats roaring upriver. Burly cleanup workers frequent the Dark Horse brewery, and residents seek compensation for damages at a former cabinet store-turned-claims office amidst cheery photos of the 181-year-old town.For a year now, Marshall, Michigan, has resembled a town under siege. Orange and yellow booms stretch across the Kalamazoo River, and warning signs tell swimmers and boaters to stay out of Morrow Lake, a popular fishing spot, “due to ongoing oil spill response.” Residents have grown accustomed to the constant hum of helicopters and the sight of airboats roaring upriver. Burly cleanup workers frequent the Dark Horse brewery, and residents seek compensation for damages at a former cabinet store-turned-claims office amidst cheery photos of the 181-year-old town. It’s been like this since last July 25, when more than 800,000 gallons of crude spilled from a pipeline into a creek that feeds the Kalamazoo River, about 100 miles upriver from Lake Michigan. The EPA ranks it as the largest spill in Midwestern history, but even so, officials say that oil from a typical disaster of that size would have been cleaned up long ago: skimmed, soaked, and vacuumed from the surface. But this was no typical oil spill. The pipeline owned by the Canadian company Enbridge carried mostly heavy, viscous crude from tar sands fields in Alberta, Canada, bound for Midwestern refineries. Raw tar sands oil, or bitumen, is so thick that it has to be mixed with a thinning compound, or diluent — a highly volatile derivative of natural gas that includes large amounts of benzene and other toxic chemicals — in order to make it liquid enough to pump through pipelines. When that combination, known as DilBit, spilled out of the ruptured pipeline, the benzene and other chemicals in the mixture went airborne, forcing mandatory evacuations of surrounding homes (many of which were later bought by Enbridge because their owners couldn’t safely return), while the thick, heavy bitumen sank into the water column and coated the river and lake bottom, mixing with sediment and suffocating bottom-dwelling plants, animals, and micro-organisms. Surface skimmers and vacuums were no help, and a full year later, EPA officials and scientists are still working on a plan to remove submerged oil from about 200 acres of river and lake bottom. EPA officials had given Enbridge an August 31 deadline to get all the oil out, but they now say a full cleanup could take years. “Where we thought we might be winding down our piece of the response, we’re actually ramping back up,” said Mark Durno, one of EPA’s on-scene coordinators. “The submerged oil is a real story — it’s a real eye-opener. … In larger spills we’ve dealt with before, we haven’t seen nearly this footprint of submerged oil, if we’ve seen any at all.” Critics say that what happened in Marshall was a dramatic example of the potential environmental, economic, and public health risks of transporting tar sands oil long distances — something that fossil fuel companies want to do in increasingly greater amounts as demand for their product grows in response to rising gasoline prices and concerns about U.S. reliance on oil from the Middle East. An Enbridge competitor, TransCanada, is pushing the Obama administration to approve a new 1,700-mile-long pipeline known as the Keystone XL in order to move tar sands oil from Alberta — whose refineries can no longer handle all the bitumen being extracted from the ground — to facilities in Texas. But environmental watchdogs and concerned lawmakers say the Kalamazoo spill, and another one earlier this month from an ExxonMobil pipeline on the Yellowstone River in Montana, show that moving more raw tar sands oil is a bad idea, at least until tougher safety standards can be put in place to protect air quality, drinking water, and public health. Keystone XL would cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to almost a third of the irrigated agriculture in the United States and provides drinking water to millions of Midwest residents. The new pipeline would connect with portions of another network known as Keystone, which has already sprung at least 12 leaks from pipelines and pumping stations since going online about a year ago — a concern expressed in a recent letter from seven U.S. senators to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “The fact that we’re still cleaning up a major oil spill in the Kalamazoo River a year later is a good indication that we need to seriously think about tar sands safety before we build a new tar sands pipeline,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. She called the review of pipeline safety issues by the State Department, whose approval is needed for Keystone XL to move forward, “totally inadequate.” A January report by NRDC, the Sierra Club, and the Pipeline Safety Trust says that pipelines transporting DilBit are at greater risk of rupturing, based on a comparison of spills on pipelines carrying mostly tar sands oil versus those carrying mostly conventional crude. Tar sands is more abrasive and more corrosive than conventional oil, the report says, and pipelines like the one near Marshall were built a half-century ago, long before tar sands were being shipped. And when those pipelines do rupture and spill tar sands oil, the potential impact on public health and the environment is worse and longer lasting. After the Kalamazoo spill, for example, health department surveys found that more than 300 residents living near the spill suffered ill effects in the following weeks and months, including severe headaches, nausea, and respiratory problems. Enbridge officials including CEO Patrick Daniel repeatedly denied last year that their pipeline had spilled tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River, telling OnEarth that it was carrying conventional oil from the Cold Lake region of Alberta. But that region produces tar sands oil, and eventually, after further media questioning, Daniel acknowledged as much. Likewise, after ExxonMobil spilled more than 40,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River on July 2 of this year, company officials initially denied that their pipeline ever carried tar sands oil, yet under pressure later admitted that it did. That apparently came as a surprise to regulators at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, who told Reuters last week that they didn’t know the heavier, more dangerous crude sometimes flowed through the line. A year after Kalamazoo, the National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating the cause of the spill. Many locals were outraged by Enbridge’s slow response to indications of trouble on the pipeline, which apparently started after a routine shutdown the evening of July 25. Numerous reports of a natural gas smell were called in to 911 starting at 9:26 p.m. Firefighters investigated during the night and also smelled natural gas and petroleum, but they couldn’t find the source. Enbridge officials controlling the pipeline from Edmonton attempted to restart it repeatedly despite problems and didn’t send a worker onsite until the next morning, according to a timeline compiled by the Michigan Messenger. The spill’s impact on wildlife remains unknown; the first study results aren’t expected until at least September. But about 2,400 turtles coated with oil have been cleaned, treated, and released over the past year. In Talmadge Creek, where the spill occurred, several species of fish were wiped out, according to Michigan Department of Natural Resources official Jay K. Wesley. Enbridge estimates that it will spend about $550 million on the cleanup, most of which will be covered by insurance. It could also be liable for additional fines and citizen claims, plus damages from any lawsuits. The company wouldn’t comment for this story, except by email, in which spokesman Jason Manshum said: “Enbridge has committed since the outset of this incident to restore the area as close as possible to its pre-existing condition. … We remain fully committed to that goal.” But Gary Morgan, a retired sheriff’s deputy and karate school owner in Marshall, said he doesn’t think the river will ever return to its previous state. “People used that river so much, you’d hear them talk about seeing foxes and deer and this and that,” he said. “That’s the tragedy. You can clean it up enough to use it, but it will never be the same.” Kari Lydersen is a Chicago-based freelancer and journalism instructor at Columbia College and in a non-profit youth program. She is the author of three books, most recently “Revolt on Goose Island: The Chicago Factory Takeover and What it Says About the Economic Crisis.” www.karilydersen.com 2011-07-27T02:07:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/vote_no_on_house_bill_to_fast-track_keystone_pipeline_review http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/vote_no_on_house_bill_to_fast-track_keystone_pipeline_review#When:13:06:25Z As early as Tuesday, the House will decide whether to rush a ruling over Big Oil's plan to run a pipeline through the American heartland to deliver the dirtiest oil on the planet from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. The bill - H.R. 1938 - would fast-track the vital environmental review this perilous pipeline proposal demands. This legislation deserves a swift and sound defeat. We must all call on our congressmen today to vote against it. As early as Tuesday, the House will decide whether to rush a ruling over Big Oil’s plan to run a pipeline through the American heartland to deliver the dirtiest oil on the planet from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. The bill – H.R. 1938 – would fast-track the vital environmental review this perilous pipeline proposal demands. This legislation deserves a swift and sound defeat. We must all call on our congressmen today to vote against it. The bill is meant to improve the prospects for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would snake its way 1,711 miles from Canada to Texas to take tar sands crude oil to Gulf coast refineries. Because it would cross the U.S. border, the pipeline requires a presidential determination that it is in our national interest. It also requires an environmental review. The U.S. State Department is responsible for both. The State Department expects to have a preliminary environmental assessment completed by mid-August. It has said it would complete its review of a determination of national interest by year’s end. That’s not fast enough for Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb. He’s sponsored a bill that seeks to tie the hands of our diplomatic corps, by setting an arbitrary deadline of Nov. 1 for a final decision. In other words, rather than allowing for the full and fair environmental and national security assessment this project requires, Terry’s bill would ramrod the process. Who would get shortchanged? Not just the career foreign service officers trying to reach an informed judgment, but the American people. We’re counting on the State Department to do its homework and come clean about the way this project would expose American waters, croplands and communities to grave and unacceptable risks. The White House opposes this bill. “The bill is unnecessary, because the Department of State has been working diligently to complete the permit decision process,” the White House noted Monday in an official statement of administration policy. Further, the statement continues, the bill would interfere with the executive authority to assess “complex issues which could have serious security, safety, environmental and other ramifications.” Congress has plenty to do, it would seem, without needlessly injecting itself into the State Department’s work. Our professional diplomatic corps doesn’t need the likes of Lee Terry hovering about with a stopwatch meant to hurry up important environmental review. If anything, we need State to bear down and work harder. In a June comment letter, the Environmental Protection Agency found key deficiencies in the State Department’s environmental review to date. The proposed route, for example, would take the pipeline through 250 miles of the Ogallala Aquifer, the source of clean drinking water for millions of Americans and the single largest pool of irrigation water in the country. With stakes this high, the National Environmental Policy Act requires the consideration of alternate routes. That has not been done. The EPA also wants public hearings to consider the potential harm to communities along the pipeline route and near the refineries where the tar sands crude might be processed. That’s only prudent and fair. What about the toxic stew of chemicals and volatile natural gas liquids used to help get tar sands crude to flow, under heat and high pressure, through the pipelines? More needs to be disclosed about that, the EPA asserts. Finally, the EPA wants more information developed on the risks this pipeline would pose to wetlands and migratory birds, so that mitigation measures can be put in place to protect them before a crisis occurs. It was a year ago this month, after all, that another tar sands pipeline spilled 840,000 gallons of toxic crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. A 30-mile stretch remains closed due to the pollution, and crude has contaminated nearby Morrow Lake, where some 200 acres of shoreline and bottom are covered in heavy oil. Clean up workers are still struggling, for that matter, to mop up some 42,000 gallons of toxic crude oil that poured into the Yellowstone River several weeks ago, after yet another pipeline ruptured there. Before the State Department can make a determination about the hazards of the Keystone XL pipeline, we need to know more about the risks these types of blowouts pose to the waters, wildlife and lands we depend on and cherish. The policy must be guided by science, not the ticking of some artificial clock – whether it’s set by Big Oil and its allies on Capitol Hill or by administration officials rushing to complete the process before performing a thorough review. 2011-07-26T13:06:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/10_reasons_congress_should_not_rush_proposed_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/10_reasons_congress_should_not_rush_proposed_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline#When:16:24:25Z While the Yellowstone River is still being cleaned after a 42,000 gallon ExxonMobile pipeline spill earlier this month and on the year anniversary of a 840,000 gallon Enbridge pipeline spill into the Kalamazoo River, which is still closed due to the contamination, the House of Representatives will vote to expedite the next oil disaster. Here are 10 reasons why – based on safety – Congress should not rush Keystone XL:While the Yellowstone River is still being cleaned after a 42,000 gallon ExxonMobile pipeline spill earlier this month and on the year anniversary of a 840,000 gallon Enbridge pipeline spill into the Kalamazoo River, which is still closed due to the contamination, the House of Representatives will vote to expedite the next oil disaster. Introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), H.R. 1938 directs the President to expedite the permitting and make a final decision by this November on TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This pipeline is a bad bet for America for a lot of reasons, including the fact that TransCanada actually told the Canadian government it would increase our nation’s fuel bill by $4 billion per year. But we need look no further than the clockwork contamination of America’s lands and waters by tar sands pipelines to see that rushing this pipeline is irresponsible. Here are 10 reasons why – based on safety – Congress should not rush Keystone XL: TransCanada’s brand new Keystone tar sands pipeline has spilled 12 times in 12 months. The toxic chemicals that will flow through Keystone XL haven’t been disclosed to emergency first responders. Keystone XL’s spill frequency and worst-case scenario spill have been seriously underestimated. TransCanada is strong-arming American farmers opposed to Keystone XL’s route through the Ogallala Aquifer. Existing pipeline safety standards are failing to protect public health and the environment. Regulators have said that tar sands may cause more “wear and tear” on pipelines. Tar sands were implicated in all the worst pipeline spills in the U.S. and Canada over the last year. Pending legislation in the House and Senate acknowledge that tar sands pipelines may be risky. Michigan’s Kalamazoo River is still contaminated from a tar sands pipeline spill a year ago. Keystone XL’s environmental review has taken so long because it’s been flawed by bias. Congressional testimony of Randy Thompson, Nebraskan farmer and rancher: “TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline, which crosses the eastern part of our state, has been in operation for less than a year and has already had twelve confirmed leaks. The latest of which spewed a geyser of chemical laden tar sands sixty feet into the air. In only a few minutes, it discharged nearly twenty thousand gallons into the surrounding area. How can we have confidence that this won’t happen on our property?” 1. TransCanada’s brand new Keystone tar sands pipeline has spilled 12 times in 12 months. Keystone is the newest pipeline on record to have been deemed a threat to life, property and the environment by regulators. After a 16,800 gallon spill on May 7 in North Dakota followed by another spill on May 29 in Kansas, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued TransCanada a corrective action order, temporarily shutting down the pipeline. This order is still in effect and TransCanada is still complying with its requirements. 2. The toxic chemicals that will flow through Keystone XL haven’t been disclosed to emergency first responders. Tar sands crude is thicker, more corrosive, and more abrasive than conventional crude, so it has to be mixed with chemical diluents, then pumped at high pressures and temperatures to make it flow through a pipeline. The State Department’s environmental review of Keystone XL hasn’t analyzed what’s in these mixtures, claiming it’s “proprietary information.” The Environmental Protection Agency critiqued this, saying that such analysis is “important to establish the potential health and environmental impacts of any spilled oil, and responder/worker safety, and to develop response strategies.” The Yellowstone and Kalamazoo River spills demonstrate why this is important. In both cases, confusion ensued about how to respond because no one knew what chemicals were spilled. 3. Keystone XL spill frequency and worst-case scenario spill have been seriously underestimated. This is according to an independent analysis by Dr. John Stansbury, a professor of water resources engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He estimated that Keystone XL would have 91 spills of more than 50 barrels over 50 years. TransCanada estimated it would have 11. Stansbury also estimated that the worst-case spill into the Missouri, Yellowstone and Platte Rivers would be 122,867 , 165,416 , and 140,950 barrels, respectively, resulting in oil plumes extending for hundreds of miles. The worst-case spill for a subsurface release to groundwater in the Sandhills region of Nebraska would be 189,000 barrels. 4. TransCanada is strong-arming American farmers opposed to Keystone XL’s route through the Ogallala Aquifer. TransCanada is threatening American farmers with eminent domain even after Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) asked them not to. Farmers are concerned about the proposed route for Keystone XL, which passes right through the Nebraska Sandhills where the sandy soils are saturated by the Ogallala Aquifer at or near the surface level. So the pipeline would have to be laid directly into the aquifer, which provides irrigation water for much of America’s breadbasket and drinking water for millions of people. Two hydrologists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have made the case that their state’s fragile Sandhills is particularly vulnerable to a pipeline spill. 5. Existing pipeline safety standards are failing to protect public health and the environment. National Wildlife Federation’s 2010 report, “Assault on America: A Decade of Petroleum Company Disaster, Pollution, and Profit,” documents that oil disasters are tragically all too common. From 2000 to 2009, pipeline accidents accounted for 161 fatalities and 576 injuries in the United States. Since 2009, pipeline accidents haven’t fared better. According to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, since January 2010, pipelines have spilled more than 2.3 million gallons of oil and caused $46 million dollars in damage to private property and the environment. The ExxonMobile pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River exemplifies this. Although a recent inspection by regulators revealed anomolies in the pipeline, it was allowed to continue operation, leading to the spill. Senator Max Baucus of Montana addressed Ms. Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, during a hearing on the Yellowstone River spill: “To be honest, ma’am, it sounds like you’re not really on top of this.” 6. Regulators have said that tar sands may cause more “wear and tear” on pipelines. About two weeks after the Yellowstone River spill, it came to light that ExxonMobile’s pipeline routinely carried tar sands crude. This surprised Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and Montana Department of Environmental Quality officials. In response to this development, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said, “Tar sands crude may also cause more wear and tear on pipes because of its chemical makeup, including corrosive and abrasive agents…Federal inspectors were trying to determine if transport of tar sands crude could have triggered internal corrosion that may have played a role in the rupture.” 7. Tar sands were implicated in all the worst pipeline spills in the U.S. and Canada over the last year. Last year, an Enbridge pipeline spilled 840,000 gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River. In April of this year, the Rainbow pipeline in Canada ruptured and spilled over a million gallons of crude – the largest spill in Canada in 36 years. The Rainbow pipeline carries tar sands crude. The ExxonMobile pipeline that spilled 42,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River carries tar sands crude. TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline that leaked 12 times in a year carries tar sands crude. Is this merely coincidence? Probably not. If tar sands crude causes more wear and tear on pipelines, more spills would be expected. 8. Pending legislation in the House and Senate acknowledge that tar sands pipelines may be risky. In May, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee passed the Pipeline Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 275) that, among other things, calls on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to conduct a tar sands pipeline safety study. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is now considering draft pipeline safety legislation that also calls for a tar sands pipeline safety study. While this is a step in the right direction, the study should be done before any more tar sands pipelines are built. 9. Michigan’s Kalamazoo River is still contaminated from a tar sands pipeline spill a year ago. Not only does tar sands crude cause more wear and tear on pipelines than conventional oil, it’s also much harder to clean up when it spills. Unlike conventional crude oil, which floats on water and can be skimmed off when it spills, tar sands crude sinks. The Environmental Protection Agency recently reported the results from its assessment of the river a year after the spill. The river is in a much worse condition than anyone expected due to the tar sands crude sinking to the bottom of the riverbed. The Agency identified over 200 acres of submerged crude that has spread, unseen, throughout 40 miles of waterway. The river will remain closed through the summer. Toby Cull, who lives near the Kalamazoo River told the Detroit News: “That’s the biggest thing Enbridge can’t put a price on — what they’ve done to our daily lives.” Cull estimated that 17 of his neighbors moved due to the spill. 10. Keystone XL’s environmental review has taken so long because it’s been flawed by bias. As uncovered by the LA Times, TransCanada is one of the biggest clients of Entrix, the consultant that the State Department hired to do the environmental review for Keystone XL. This raises serious questions about conflict of interest, especially considering that, as the New York Times points out, the State Department has now come out with two flawed environmental impact statements for the pipeline. Had the State Department focused on evaluating the project on its merits, the environmental review would be done by now. The State Department still has a chance to get it right, but not if rushed by Congress. For these 10 reasons, the House of Representatives should abandon consideration of H.R. 1938 to rush the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and focus on strengthening or nation’s pipeline safety standards to protect public health and the environment. 2011-07-25T16:24:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/canadas_new_politics_clean_vs_dirty_energy http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/canadas_new_politics_clean_vs_dirty_energy#When:15:04:25Z The ghost of Bruce Carson, the scandal-plagued former member of the Prime Minister’s inner circle and subsequently political quarterback for the oil industry’s push for a national energy strategy dominated by the tar sands, was indeed hanging over the meeting of federal and provincial energy ministers this week in Kananaskis.The ghost of Bruce Carson, the scandal-plagued former member of the Prime Minister’s inner circle and subsequently political quarterback for the oil industry’s push for a national energy strategy dominated by the tar sands, was indeed hanging over the meeting of federal and provincial energy ministers this week in Kananaskis. The results were initially looking pretty good for the tar sands companies, as they got almost everything they wanted (except for carbon pricing, which was likely in the package just for show – see the table below). But the wheels on the bandwagon started coming off in a hurry, with Ontario refusing to sign on to a communiqué that called the tar sands “sustainable” and asking why the federal government wouldn’t give the kind of support to clean energy that they do to oil and gas. Quebec subsequently distanced themselves from the federal/Alberta position as well, saying they want to focus on green energy. In BC, the statements in support of Enbridge’s Gateway pipeline from the tar sands to the Pacific Ocean prompted reaction from First Nations, NGOsand the provincial NDP (BC’s energy minister was also notably absent from the meeting, as was Ontario’s). Keep reading this blog post (and see the table comparing What the Oil Industry (and friends) Asked For and What the Minister Delivered) on the Greenpeace website 2011-07-22T15:04:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/realities_of_a_tar_sands_oil_spill_one_year_later http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/realities_of_a_tar_sands_oil_spill_one_year_later#When:16:31:25Z Around this time last year, I made an emergency trip home to Battle Creek, Mich., after hearing reports of a major oil spill in the Kalamazoo River. The oil disaster gushed nearly 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River watershed.Around this time last year, I made an emergency trip home to Battle Creek, Mich., after hearing reports of a major oil spill in the Kalamazoo River. The oil disaster gushed nearly 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River watershed. In the weeks following, I saw lives get turned upside down: families lost their homes, and many people fell ill from exposure to toxic benzene. I saw oil-soaked wildlife struggling to survive and wide-spread habitat destruction. Now, a year later, I wanted to see whether Enbridge Oil had made any progress in cleaning up its oil spill—one that has turned out to be one of the worst ever in the Midwest. Unfortunately, the realities of a tar sands oil spill have proven that there’s a long way to go in the effort to restore the Kalamazoo River watershed for people and wildlife. One Year Later, Michigan Tar Sands Oil Spill – Ceresco Dam Tar sands oil on the Kalamazoo River, one year after the Enbridge oil spill. (Photo taken on July 18th, 2011 – by NWF’s Beth Wallace) On July 19, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed the findings from its spring river assessment. The agency quickly confirmed my worst fear: The impacted waterways are in much worse shape than anyone had thought due to tar sands oil sinking into the riverbed. The EPA has identified over 200 acres of submerged toxic tar sands oil that has spread, unseen, throughout 40 miles of waterway. The EPA explained that they have identified locations of “heavily contaminated” sediment: Talmadge Creek, Ceresco, Mill Pond, and Marrow Lake (to name a few). Most shocking is Marrow Lake. Until now, it has been reported that little to no oil ever reached Marrow Lake. Now, it’s believed that large amounts of submerged tar sands oil contaminated the lake, under the surface of the water and undetected for nearly a year. The EPA has given Enbridge until August 31 to address the areas identified in the spring assessment. After that date, the EPA will re-evaluate the extent of contamination from the submerged oil and what action needs to be taken. Meanwhile, Enbridge is collecting the toxic oil on the bottom of the river by dredging, aerating, and racking the river – then placing oil-collecting booms downriver to capture any oil that resurfaces. With the resurfacing and mixing of oil comes continued disruption and devastation to wildlife habitat and wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) reported that since the start of 2011, an additional 287 oiled turtles have been captured and cleaned, while 47 turtles remain in care. To add insult to injury, the heavy and toxic metals that are found in tar sands are starting to be detected along sections of the impacted Kalamazoo River, as reported by Todd A. Heywood (7-20-2011) with the American Independent: In late August, 2010 EPA officials confirmed water samples were producing slight detection of both mercury and nickel — common heavy metal contaminates of tar sands oil. EPA said then the levels were nothing to be concerned about. On Tuesday, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality announced it had been detecting several heavy metals and other contaminates at levels above what are considered safe. “What we do see are elevated levels in areas of contamination that exceed some of the state’s criteria for groundwater and surface water criteria,” said a MDEQ official whose name was not clear in a recording of the press call with federal and state officials updating about the oil spill recovery work. With the new discovery of vast quantities of submerged oil and elevated samples of heavy and toxic metals, doubts are arising about whether Enbridge Energy low-balled the size of the oil spill. The EPA is punting that question to Enbridge and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is investigating the cause of the pipeline spill – completing of that investigation is expected later this year or early 2012. New details about the Enbridge oil disaster come as the nation grapples with two other high-profile pipeline failures near Yellowstone National Park and in Alaska. Yet, it amazes me that congressional leaders in Michigan, whose districts were personally impacted by this spill, are promoting tar sands and pipeline expansion before pipeline safety. The impacted communities of Michigan are in a unique position to pass along these lessons learned and demand change, yet our leaders continue to ignore the facts and side with big oil. Before any other pipeline or tar sands projects gain approval, there needs to be environmental and human health impact studies to fully understand the impacts of a tar sands oil spill. Congress also needs to require a study on the impacts of transporting this more corrosive and toxic tar sands oil through our pipelines, which are not built for its corrosive nature and high pressures. Before any pipeline project gains approval, like the Keystone XL, we need to fully understand what happened with Enbridge tar sands pipeline, line 6B, and the dozens of other pipeline spills that have happened in the last year. Congress needs to focus on increased pipeline safety to ensure that our communities, natural resources and wildlife will never face another oil spill disaster like the one in the Kalamazoo River. Please reach out to our Congressional leaders and demand that we protect communities, wildlife and our natural resources before rushing dangerous tar sands pipeline projects, like the Keystone XL. 2011-07-21T16:31:25+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/canadian_oil_money_seeks_to_decide_u.s._energy_future http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/canadian_oil_money_seeks_to_decide_u.s._energy_future#When:13:26:36Z Yesterday, a meeting of Canadian federal and provincial environment ministers that discussed a national energy strategy wrapped up. Normally, this might not be something that would catch our attention here in DC. However, part of the conclusion from that meeting was that Canada is looking to the United States as the market for their dirty energy. The federal natural resources minister repeatedly voiced his support for Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway pipelines to carry dirty tar sands oil to the U.S. and Asia respectively.Yesterday, a meeting of Canadian federal and provincial environment ministers that discussed a national energy strategy wrapped up. Normally, this might not be something that would catch our attention here in DC. However, part of the conclusion from that meeting was that Canada is looking to the United States as the market for their dirty energy. The federal natural resources minister repeatedly voiced his support for Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway pipelines to carry dirty tar sands oil to the U.S. and Asia respectively. This comes at a time when the debate over Keystone XL has heated up on Capitol Hill and 265,000 Americans of all different backgrounds have taken the time to denounce this pipeline in communications to the State Department. Just like the days when the Texan oil interests had a stranglehold on the White House, Canada’s current Prime Minister hails from the oil fields of Canada, and big oil companies seem to have bought their way at this week’s meeting. Based on the media statements made, you could easily have walked away with the impression that all of Canada is united behind the expansion of tar sands and new tar sands pipelines. But, as we’ve experienced repeatedly here with laggard and leader states when it comes to clean energy and climate change, Canada is not a united pro-tar sands front as the oil industry would have us believe. Ontario, the most populous province, decided that it wasn’t fitting for a green energy leader to stick its head in the tar sands with the rest of the provinces. Instead, it refused to sign the communiqué and its Premier is now pushing the federal government to show more support for clean energy. This is more evidence that US decision-makers shouldn’t believe the spin from the Harper government that Keystone XL has the backing of Canadians. From Ontario to First Nations leaders to unions, Canadians are speaking out with concern about the mistaken energy strategy of the current government. For the first time in history we have the technology and the know-how to move beyond oil and cut our addiction to toxic fossil fuels. America is a land of innovators not of importers. Instead of permitting the dangerous Keystone XL, Americans should be investing clean energy solutions that will create jobs in Detroit, reinvigorate our laboratories in Silicon Valley, and provide the healthy future our children deserve. America needs to keep its eye on the prize and give a rowdy hell no to Canadian tar sands. — Kate Colarulli of the Sierra Club Beyond Oil Campaign 2011-07-21T13:26:36+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/irresponsible_and_unsustainable http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/irresponsible_and_unsustainable#When:11:58:57Z Canada’s international reputation suffered another blow with the short-sighted endorsement by its energy ministers of continued expansion of the tar sands oil industry. This “non-strategy” from Canada’s energy ministers shows how out of step Canada is with the United States – a country that should be a marketplace for Canadian clean energy as it works to implement President Obama’s new Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. Canada’s international reputation suffered another blow with the short-sighted endorsement by its energy ministers of continued expansion of the tar sands oil industry. This “non-strategy” from Canada’s energy ministers shows how out of step Canada is with the United States – a country that should be a marketplace for Canadian clean energy as it works to implement President Obama’s new Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. The outcome of this week’s meeting of federal and provincial energy ministers shows just how much Canada has changed from the days where it was a leader in fighting climate change internationally. Now, it is falling behind countries such as Germany and China who are investing millions in clean energy solutions in order to shore up an industry that will devastate its Boreal forest, critical freshwater resources, the health and safety of people throughout North America, and our global climate. The ministers were gathered to talk about a national energy strategy. There was actually some excitement that Canada might move forward with a progressive strategy for building economic prosperity across the country on clean energy solutions. This strategy was supported by a high powered lobby of businesspeople, investors, municipal leaders, scientists and non-profit organizations who called on the ministers to move away from oil, gas and coal towards a greener economy. Instead, the ministers produced a statement that makes Canada look like it is in the pocket of the oil industry. In fact, the meeting was heavily sponsored by oil companies and, unfortunately for us, they got what they paid for. The minister’s statement calls the tar sands “responsible and sustainable.” Ironic when from a climate, health and long-term security perspective, the tar sands are irresponsible and unsustainable. A voice of reason in the debate, Ontario, the most populous province flatly rejected this approach. It refused to sign the statement noting concerns about calling tar sands ‘responsible and sustainable.’ Instead, the Premier of Ontario is calling on the federal government for increased support for renewable energy. Ontario as an energy powerhouse in Canada is already taking strong steps to build its clean energy economy and the ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands industry put a burden on Ontario and other provinces to do even more than its fair share. While the tar sands province of Alberta and the Canadian federal government have marched to Big Oil’s tar sands tune in recent years, other provinces have been leading the way in clean energy. Again with their calls for a national focus on clean energy, Ontario and clean energy industry and investors are showing that there is hope for clean energy action in Canada. When the United States engages with Canada on energy issues, we need to look at provinces such as Ontario for partnership and not endorse the blind allegiance to the oil industry shown at this recent energy ministers meeting. 2011-07-21T11:58:57+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/montana_judge_sides_with_nwf_over_environment_impacts http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/montana_judge_sides_with_nwf_over_environment_impacts#When:01:01:35Z Conservationists achieved a victory in slowing the rush to mine Alberta tar sands this evening.Conservationists achieved a victory in slowing the rush to mine Alberta tar sands this evening. In a Montana District Court case brought by Missoula County, the National Wildlife Federation, the Montana Environmental Information Center and the Sierra Club; the parties are suing the state over the permits to allow the haul of massive tar sands mining equipment from Asia through parts of the U.S. The oversize loads, or megaloads, are disruptive to ecosystems and wildlife NWF has argued. NWF has asked the judge to halt the shipments until the effects and potential hazards of the loads are thoroughly analyzed. Western Regional Executive Director and Montana based NWF attorney Tom France has pressed the case along with his co-plaintiffs. Two months after the hearing on NWF’s motion to preliminarily enjoin Imperial Oil from moving the massive components across Montana highways to the Alberta mining operations, the Montana District Court issued an order this evening granting our motion and halting the project. The court held that the Montana Department Transportation violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider alternative routes, failing to consider decommissioning the highway modifications needed for the project and failing to conduct an independent evaluation of the proposal. The document can be viewed here: Montana Court Order The order comes as the state deals with a spill from the Silvertip Exxon pipeline purported to carry tar sands, and as the U.S. government considers approval of a massive tar sands pipeline project called “Keystone XL” that would cut through Montana. 2011-07-20T01:01:35+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/canadas_energy_ministers_lets_cook_the_planet http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/canadas_energy_ministers_lets_cook_the_planet#When:21:05:17Z There are a lot of things we can be proud of as Canadians. Our record of peacekeeping. Our prized national parks and vast, pristine wilderness areas. Our cultural diversity. Our beer and hockey teams. But, one thing that we should not be proud of is our role in pushing global warming through tar sands expansion. And unfortunately, that’s just what the new release from the energy and mines ministers supports.There are a lot of things we can be proud of as Canadians. Our record of peacekeeping. Our prized national parks and vast, pristine wilderness areas. Our cultural diversity. Our beer and hockey teams. But, one thing that we should not be proud of is our role in pushing global warming through tar sands expansion. And unfortunately, that’s just what the new release from the energy and mines ministers supports. It says “Alberta’s oil sands are a responsible and sustainable major supplier of energy to the world”. Yet, in a month when over 900 weather records have been broken in the U.S. alone, calling for more tar sands development is anything but responsible. The last thing the planet needs is more global warming pollution brought to it courtesy of Canada’s oil industry. The ministers were gathered in Kananaskis, Alberta to discuss a national energy strategy. While the action plan that was released contains some promising steps – like working together on energy efficiency and smart grid technologies – the overarching message that comes through is that the world needs our energy, and that means more tar sands. Yet, interestingly enough, that core assumption is flawed. The documents cite predictions by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to justify why the world needs more of Canada’s dirty oil as shown in the graph here. But, the numbers used to support that claim are based on an IEA scenario that would allow emissions to reach “a long-term level consistent with a temperature rise in excess of 6°C” (see page 383) rather than their scenario in which the world tackles climate change. To cut through the technical jargon, Canada’s energy ministers are working off the assumption that carbon pollution rises and the planet warms by three times the level thought to be safe from catastrophic climate change. Canada, under the Copenhagen Accord, supported the goal of limiting global warming to 2°C. The political leaders at the meeting missed the boat. Canada can take advantage of the trillions of dollars of global investment in clean energy and chart a prosperous and clean energy future for the country. Some provinces are already doing that, like Ontario and Quebec. We hope that leading provinces will become more vocal champions for the type of energy strategy we need. Gillian McEachern Program Manager, Climate and Energy 2011-07-19T21:05:17+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/pipeline_climate_disaster_the_keystone_xl_pipeline_and_labour http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/pipeline_climate_disaster_the_keystone_xl_pipeline_and_labour#When:01:44:04Z More than two million American construction workers -- nearly one in five -- are currently unemployed. Factories that produce building materials are operating at only half their capacity. So when a private company proposes a project that it claims will spur the creation of 118,000 new jobs, it is hardly surprising that unions representing construction, transportation, and related workers pricked up their ears. The project is the Keystone XL Pipeline. It will take oil produced from tar sands in Alberta, Canada 1,959 miles to Nederland, Texas.More than two million American construction workers — nearly one in five — are currently unemployed. Factories that produce building materials are operating at only half their capacity. So when a private company proposes a project that it claims will spur the creation of 118,000 new jobs, it is hardly surprising that unions representing construction, transportation, and related workers pricked up their ears. The project is the Keystone XL Pipeline. It will take oil produced from tar sands in Alberta, Canada 1,959 miles to Nederland, Texas. The General Presidents of the Teamsters, Plumbers, Operating Engineers, and Laborers unions say the project will “pave a path to better days and raise the standard of living for working men and women in the construction, manufacturing, and transportation industries.” It will allow “the American worker” to “get back to the task of strengthening their families and the communities they live in.” It sounds good. But before supporting the project, we need to take a deeper look at whether this project — and the energy practices it will make possible — will really lead to “better days” for working men and women, their families, and their communities. We need to know whether there are dangers that make the project more of a threat than a promise. And we need to know whether the claims made for its benefits are really true. Read more on the Huffington Post website 2011-07-19T01:44:04+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/two_views_from_the_thursdays_pipeline_safety_hearing http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/two_views_from_the_thursdays_pipeline_safety_hearing#When:16:23:30Z We had several people at Thursday's pipeline safety hearing held by the House's Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, so we're sharing two of their write-ups on the hearing.We had several people at Thursday’s pipeline safety hearing held by the House’s Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, so we’re sharing two of their write-ups on the hearing. In the Midst of a Slew of Bad – the Sane Voices of Tester and Brown Emerge by Jessica Eckdish, Sierra Club Beyond Oil Apprentice At a time when countless events and actions are threatening public health and the environment, a few voices emerged at Thursday’s pipeline safety hearing, put on by the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Two voices in particular, those of Ranking Member Corrine Brown of Florida and Senator Jon Tester of Montana, stood out as champions of ensuring the safety of our communities and environment. To say the current state of pipeline safety is dire would be an understatement. Two years before the Exxon Mobil pipeline spill on July 1 sent an estimated 1,000 barrels of oil spewing into the Yellowstone River in Montana, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a warning letter to Exxon. More recently, officials in Laurel, Montana, raised concerns about the pipeline, specifically citing where it crosses the river, in the months before the spill. The Exxon disaster is only one out of the countless numbers of spills that occur across our nation each year and cause irreparable environmental damages, health concerns, and death. At the same time that these spills are affecting citizens nation-wide, Congress is debating the addition of a much more destructive pipeline – the Keystone XL, which would carry much more corrosive and dangerous tar sands crude oil from Canada to Texas. While tar sands crude oil poses a greater threat than conventional crude oil, the regulations imposed on it are exactly the same, increasing risk to the communities through which the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will run (PDF). One such proposed route is through the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to nearly two million Americans and supplies one-third of our irrigation water. A spill in this highly sensitive region would have detrimental impacts on America’s heartland. The probability of this type of spill is illustrated by the fact that the original Keystone I has already leaked 12 times in its first year of operation. Despite the countless threats this pipeline poses, many members of Congress are jumping at the chance to expand our nation’s dependence on fossil fuel and increase profits for foreign oil companies like TransCanada, the owner of the proposed Keystone XL. Congressman Lee Terry of Nebraska proposed a bill currently under consideration that would effectively expedite the permitting process for the Keystone XL pipeline. At Thursday’s hearing, two members of Congress stood up to this blatant disregard for public safety. Rep. Brown’s opening statement at the pipeline safety hearing urged the House not to vote on the Terry bill, pointing out that “there are still major concerns with this project, and this same pipeline will be traveling across the Yellowstone River that is being affected today by the Exxon spill.” Senator Tester (D-MT), who has consistently questioned pipeline safety stressed the need to protect our land and water for future generations in his testimony, in which he argued, “We cannot be in the business of saying no to safety, transparency and accountability…We are in the business of making those values work for us, for the sake of our health, our safety, our economy and more importantly, for our kids and grandkids.” Ultimately, the fact is, our current safety measures are not even safe enough for regular oil, let alone the much more toxic and corrosive tar sands crude oil. Congress should focus its attention on increasing safety measures for existing pipelines, not speeding up the permitting process of an unsafe new one. Many members of Congress do not seem to understand this idea, but some, like Representative Brown and Senator Tester, recognize the value of prudence and stand tall in the face of foolishness. These champions are both greatly needed and appreciated in this fight to protect our communities and environment for future generations. What Happened with the MT Exxon Pipeline, & Were There Warning Signs? by Rosie Mansfield and Laura Wandres, Sierra Club media interns The House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met Thursday to discuss the Silvertip Pipeline spill in Montana. Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) attended the hearing as a guest, to voice concerns for his constituents and the timeline of the clean-up. President of Exxon Gary Pruessing said during the hearing that during the regular 2005 and 2009 inspections, there were no indications that caused concern for the safety of the pipeline. The ruptured pipeline is currently inaccessible, leaving investigators, Exxon Mobil, and the public without many answers. Even once the Yellowstone River waters have receded, digging up the pipeline for inspection may take months, says Cynthia Quarterman, administrator of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Association (PHMSA). Pruessing took the opportunity to clarify some confusion and suspicion over the procedure Exxon Mobil followed to shut down the section of pipeline. When pressure readings dropped for the pipeline, Exxon Mobil shut down the pump and eventually some of the valves. However, one valve in an area facing the nearby oil refinery was safe to re-open. So Exxon Mobil allowed this oil to flow downhill to the refinery and re-closed the valve. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institue of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have all deemed the area safe for public health. However, Dr. Doug Inkley of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), voiced his concerns for a colleague, Alexis Bonogofsky, who is currently suffering from acute hydrocarbon exposure thought to have been contracted from the oil slick on her pastures. He says he fears Exxon Mobil is using the same “industry playbook” as the BP oil spill last summer. It was not until independent investigators went to the Gulf, that the government acknowledged the potential for severe health risks, Inkley says. Inkley says that if the Silvertip Pipeline passed its last inspection, maybe the inspection specifications are not adequate to protect the public or the environment. Inspectors did warn Exxon Mobil that the rising floodwaters may threaten the integrity of the pipeline near the Yellowstone River. However, flooding for the area is typical, which is likely why the Exxon Mobil operators did not respond “This is not just another story about oil,” Rehberg says, “It’s about our home.” He says Montana culture is in the outdoors. Senator Jon Tester says he hopes to see everything restored, jobs at the refinery, even if the supply is low, and the health of the land. While the Transportation subcommittee strived to reach the truth behind the Yellowstone disaster, a briefing later that day discussed the implications the spill will have on future pipeline projects. Led by concerned non-profit leaders, the message was clear that lax pipeline safeguards have lasting consequences. Along with the mystery surrounding the cause of the Silvertip’s leak, uncertainties continue to accumulate in Montana. While the EPA, NIH and CDC all agree that there are no current health risks due to the spill, speakers noted that the reality of hospitalized neighbors and oil-laden farmlands suggests studies may prove differently in time. As only 5-10% of this oil is likely to be captured in clean up procedures, the entire health of the Yellowstone’s riparian community could be in jeopardy. Sarah Kendall of the Western Organization of Resource Councils shared that many farmers now worry about how they will make a living amongst the chaos. Who will pay for the damages incurred to their land and health? As the chemicals that were in the pipeline have yet to be disclosed to residents, many still don’t even know what proper precautions to take while they await the approval of Exxon’s clean-up plan. Yet amongst all of the uncertainty, Congress is still expediting the approval process of another pipeline, the Keystone XL project. With the carrying capacity of 20 times that of the Silvertip, Keystone XL would make 2,000 river crossings throughout the Midwest vulnerable to pollution, including the already fragile Yellowstone River. Anthony Swift, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, notes that the pipeline’s transport of extremely corrosive bitumen will be much more dangerous as it is not regulated by pipeline safeguards yet. In opposition to the pipeline’s rushed timeline in Congress, the speakers advocated for the reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act first. Ryan Salmon of the National Wildlife Federation urged that the “time to get pipeline safety right is before the pipeline is built” and advocated that Congress’ November 1st deadline is simply “incompatible” to ensuring proper safeguards. As unfortunate as the recent and increasing oil disasters have been, the speakers were hopeful that the Yellowstone spill will serve a wake-up call to legislators. It is high time for Congress to get serious about pipeline safeguards so we can prevent future tragedies and protect our lands and waters. 2011-07-18T16:23:30+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/new_bp_spill_this_time_in_alaska http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/new_bp_spill_this_time_in_alaska#When:15:34:52Z We’re just learning about America’s second big oil spill in just the last month, this time new BP spill in Alaska:We’re just learning about America’s second big oil spill in just the last month, this time new BP spill in Alaska: BP said on Monday that a pipeline at its 30,000 barrel per day Lisburne field, which is currently closed for maintenance, ruptured during testing and spilled a mixture of methanol and oily water onto the tundra. The London-based company has a long history of oil spills at its Alaskan pipelines – accidents which have hurt its public image in the U.S., where around 40 percent of its assets are based. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said the spill occurred on Saturday and amounted to 2,100 to 4,200 gallons. Big Oil is constantly pushing to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Why should we trust them not to spoil this pristine wilderness? 2011-07-18T15:34:52+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/group_of_influential_senators_calls_for_halt_in_permitting_process_for_keys http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/group_of_influential_senators_calls_for_halt_in_permitting_process_for_keys#When:21:38:12Z Today, a group of influential Senators wrote to the State Department calling for a halt in the Keystone XL pipeline permitting process. Senator Whitehouse led the letter, with Senators Boxer, Cardin, Lautenberg, Leahy, Menendez, and Wyden all joining to express their concerns about the proposed pipeline and its permitting process, focusing in on pipeline safety and routing issues.Today, a group of influential Senators wrote to the State Department calling for a halt in the Keystone XL pipeline permitting process. Senator Whitehouse led the letter, with Senators Boxer, Cardin, Lautenberg, Leahy, Menendez, and Wyden all joining to express their concerns about the proposed pipeline and its permitting process, focusing in on pipeline safety and routing issues. They question Secretary Clinton: “Does the [Department of State] intend to request a full safety assessment of the Keystone XL from the [Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] before proceeding with a final environmental impact statement (FEIS)?” The tragic oil pipeline ruptures into the Kalamazoo River last year, and into the Yellowstone River earlier this month should make it clear that conducting assessments about pipeline safety and diluted bitumen – the corrosive substance that would be pumped through Keystone XL from the tar sands – is an incredibly reasonable request. Keystone XL would have the capacity to pump up to 900,000 barrels per day of tar sands from Alberta, Canada over 2000 miles to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Like the Exxon pipeline that ruptured, it would cross beneath the Yellowstone River. And TransCanada hopes to build the pipeline right over – and in some places through – the Ogallala Aquifer, which millions of Americans rely on for their drinking and irrigation water. In numerous written and verbal statements and letters, Nebraska Senators Nelson and Johanns have declared that building a tar sands pipeline through the Nebraska Sandhills and Ogallala Aquifer is simply too risky. Confirming their concerns, Dr. John Stansbury, an engineering professor at the University of Nebraska, released a report earlier this week which indicated that a spill from the Keystone XL pipeline into the Ogallala Aquifer could contaminate as much as 5 billion gallons of groundwater. A large spill into the Yellowstone River could release as much as 5 million gallons of tar sands crude – over a hundred times what the Exxon pipeline spilled. Despite these unaddressed risks, the State Department has indicated that they plan to make a decision by the end of the year about the pipeline. Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska has decided to side with the oil companies over the people of Nebraska, and is trying to rush the process even more. He introduced H.R. 1938, which would force a decision about Keystone XL by November 1, cutting short both the environmental review and the National Interest Determination process. The bill has passed through the Energy and Commerce Committee and is likely to come to the House floor for a vote next week. NRDC and forty other groups sent a letter to the House of Representatives on Tuesday asking Members of Congress to oppose the legislation. The groups signed on to the letter include not only national and local environmental groups, but also farmer and landowner groups. The letter concludes: At a time when we must find ways to end our dependence on fossil fuels, deepening our reliance on the dirtiest form of oil on the planet is simply not in the national interest. We believe that conducting the appropriate analysis under NEPA – which cannot be done properly if rushed – will make this clear. For all of these reasons we urge to you oppose H.R. 1938. We hope that the letter just sent by the Senators will not only encourage the State Department to do the necessary analysis, but will also help to make it clear to Members of the House of Representatives why rushing the decision-making process for Keystone XL is a bad bet. To help stop the Keystone XL pipeline, visit www.stoptar.org and tell Secretary Clinton that dirty tar sands oil is the wrong direction for the United States. 2011-07-15T21:38:12+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_implicated_in_yellowstone_river_pipeline_spill http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/tar_sands_implicated_in_yellowstone_river_pipeline_spill#When:21:34:35Z Exxon-Mobil has admitted that the Silver Tip pipeline which ruptured and spilled 42,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River was used to move tar sands crude. Until yesterday, the company’s position had been that the pipeline carried sweet, low sulfur crude that did not originate from Alberta. On Thursday, Exxon spokesman acknowledged that their previous statements had been incorrect. Exxon-Mobil has admitted that the Silver Tip pipeline which ruptured and spilled 42,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River was used to move tar sands crude. Until yesterday, the company’s position had been that the pipeline carried sweet, low sulfur crude that did not originate from Alberta. On Thursday, Exxon spokesman acknowledged that their previous statements had been incorrect. This revelation appears to have been news to everyone, including regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). This is yet another alarm calling for updated pipeline safety standards, more transparency, and better oversight by our regulators. Given all of the warnings, it would be irresponsible to move forward with Keystone XL until these measures are in place. Now for the details. Exxon owns and operates the Silver Tip pipeline, which carries crude oil to Exxon’s refinery in Billings, Montana. In 2006, Exxon officials described a new tank farm that would allow the company to move tar sands crude on its Silver Tip pipeline to it refinery in Billings. At the time, it seemed that officials at Exxon-Mobil, Exxon’s refinery staff, and the operators of Exxon’s Silver Tip pipeline talked to the press about the fact that the pipeline would move tar sands. After five years, a pipeline spill and greater public awareness of the safety hazards presented by tar sands, Exxon staff must have forgotten they were piping and refining the stuff. This tragedy continues to demonstrate the sad state of our pipeline safety regulations. During a hearing before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee yesterday, PHMSA administrator Cynthia Quarterman told Congress that her agency had been questioning Exxon about the safety of the Silver Tip pipeline since October, 2010. Apparently regulators never asked what was in the pipeline. This isn’t as surprising as it may seem, as current pipeline safety regulations do not treat corrosive raw tar sands crude any differently than conventional oil. Moreover, despite regulators concerns of flooding, riverbed erosion, and corrosion on the pipeline, PHMSA wasn’t able to act because Exxon didn’t appear to be violating pipeline safety regulations. Our regulators seem stuck in an absurd world where they can’t act until a pipeline breaks and a disaster happens. Needless to say, safety standards that work like this are not safe. Tom Finch, PHMSA’s technical services director for its Western Regional office, recently asserted that tar sands may cause more wear and tear on pipelines. Despite these concerns, PHMSA Administrator Quarterman told Congress last month that 1) pipeline regulations were not designed for raw tar sands crude, 2) regulators had not yet evaluated what measures would be necessary to ensure that raw tar sands pipelines could be built and operated safely, and 3) PHMSA had not been involved in the environmental review for Keystone XL. Meanwhile, Congress continues to rush forward plans to build TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Keystone XL would be twenty times larger than Exxon’s pipeline and would carry hot raw tar sands crude across nearly two thousand rivers and the Ogallala Aquifer. Next week, the House of Representatives will consider a bill by Nebraska Representative Lee Terry that would make sure that a decision is made on Keystone XL before safety regulators can consider how it can be done safely. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline stands to become a monument to reckless decision making that our grandchildren will not thank us for. 2011-07-15T21:34:35+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/senators_scrutinize_safety_of_proposed_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/senators_scrutinize_safety_of_proposed_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline#When:16:24:41Z No study has been done nor regulations developed for tar sands pipelines, and pipeline safety regulators have not been involved in the environmental review for TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This is according to testimony of Ms. Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), before Congress during a hearing on pipeline safety last month. We need look no further than Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, which is still being cleaned up a year after an Enbridge pipeline spilled nearly a million gallons of tar sands crude, to know it’s long overdue.No study has been done nor regulations developed for tar sands pipelines, and pipeline safety regulators have not been involved in the environmental review for TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This is according to testimony of Ms. Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), before Congress during a hearing on pipeline safety last month. We need look no further than Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, which is still being cleaned up a year after an Enbridge pipeline spilled nearly a million gallons of tar sands crude, to know it’s long overdue. Then today, in the wake of the disastrous ExxonMobile Pipeline spill into Montana’s Yellowstone River, which may have carried tar sands crude, seven senators raised new safety concerns about Keystone XL. In a letter to Secretary Clinton, they cited the 12 spills from TransCanada’s year-old Keystone tar sands pipeline and asked whether the State Department will work with PHMSA on Keystone XL’s environmental review for before finalizing it. They also asked whether the State Department would address EPA’s concerns about the chemicals that would be mixed with the viscous tar sands crude to make it flow through the pipeline, as well as Nebraskan farmers and ranchers’ concerns that TransCanada chose the worst possible route through Ogallala Aquifer. With all the recent spills putting pipeline safety higher on the list of congressional priorities, the senators’ scrutiny of Keystone XL is timely. “The existing Keystone pipeline has been in operation for less than one year and has spilled 12 times, including spills of 400 barrels of crude in North Dakota on May 7, and 10 barrels of crude in Kansas on May 29. The May spills resulted in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issuing a Corrective Action Order to TransCanada, finding that “the continued operation of the pipeline without corrective measures would be hazardous to life, property and the environment.” These spills are troubling, as the Keystone XL pipeline will have similar characteristics, and underscore the need for careful assessment of both the spill risks and route of Keystone XL.” Among those scrutinizing Keystone XL is Senator Lautenberg, the chair of the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over pipeline safety. In May, the full Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee passed his Pipeline Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 275) that, among other things, calls on PHMSA to conduct a tar sands pipeline safety study. There is now interest in moving this legislation on a fast track to the Senate floor. Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is considering a draft pipeline safety bill, also calling for a tar sands pipeline safety study. This is a step in the right direction. However, the House should abandon consideration of Congressman Terry’s bill to expedite Keystone XL’s permitting process, echo the concerns raised by the senators, and focus on enacting pipeline safety legislation to protect public health and the environment. 2011-07-15T16:24:41+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/big_oil_paid_180000_for_the_energy_ministers_meeting_and_all_greenpeace_gav http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/big_oil_paid_180000_for_the_energy_ministers_meeting_and_all_greenpeace_gav#When:13:23:26Z When Canada’s federal and provincial energy ministers sit down on Monday to talk about a national energy strategy, a big chunk of the tab will be picked up by Canada’s biggest oil companies. When Canada’s federal and provincial energy ministers sit down on Monday to talk about a national energy strategy, a big chunk of the tab will be picked up by Canada’s biggest oil companies. Since we can’t match Exxon or Enbridge dollar for dollar, we thought we’d offer to sponsor the energy minister’s wardrobe by providing these stylish t-shirts (but you can get one too). Or even better, politicians could turn down both our offers and make the choice between energy futures based on their merits rather than the gift bags. One option is to give into the oil companies demands for a radical expansion of tar sands production. They’d still have to ram through the new pipelines this requires and pray that there will still be a market for dirty oil in the coming decades, even if this means that the climate goes haywire. But we hope they’ll check out what is behind door number two: a phase-out of oil, coal and gas by ramping-up the efficient use of renewable energy as part of building a more prosperous and just society that is safe from the threat of global warming. Kind of like what the t-shirt says. 2011-07-14T13:23:26+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/los_angeles_times_editorial_gets_it_right_on_the_risks_of_the_proposed_keys http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/los_angeles_times_editorial_gets_it_right_on_the_risks_of_the_proposed_keys#When:13:10:12Z This morning the LA Times published an editorial saying that the environmental risks of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline should be thoroughly studied and mitigation measures put in place. The LA Times is correct: there is no rush to make a decision on this pipeline that would carry toxic tar sands oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf coast crossing over 1000 US rivers and streams and going through the fragile Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer.This morning the LA Times published an editorial saying that the environmental risks of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline should be thoroughly studied and mitigation measures put in place. The LA Times is correct: there is no rush to make a decision on this pipeline that would carry toxic tar sands oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf coast crossing over 1000 US rivers and streams and going through the fragile Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer. In fact, not only do we not need this tar sands pipeline, we need to be moving away from our dependence on oil towards cleaner energy choices. This follows several editorials in the wake of the tragic spill of 42,000 gallons of oil from an ExxonMobil pipeline into the wild Yellowstone River in Montana. The Montana Great Falls Tribune editorial noted that the Yellowstone oil spill proves that pipeline safety rules need to be tougher. The Nebraska Journal Star editorial noted that the Yellowstone oil spill showed regrettable proof of oil pipeline risk. And an earlier LA Times editorial found that with a spill such as that into the Yellowstone, it is not enough to simply clean up the river. The Obama Administration should get the right information on pipeline safety, alternative routes, environmental justice, greenhouse gas emissions and many other aspects of the pipeline before it makes a decision. So far, the State Department has not done a thorough enough environmental review, despite requests from the Environmental Protection Agency, landowners, farmers, mayors, the environmental community and many more. Moreover, the United States does not need this pipeline – it is not in our national interest, but represents a path toward deepening dependence on oil as we should be moving towards cleaner energy solutions. As the LA Times rightly concludes, this is a global issue. With drought ravaging the U.S. South and new analysis showing the high cost of climate change, we must do better than a continued reliance on high-carbon fuels such as tar sands from Canada. 2011-07-14T13:10:12+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/pipeline_safety_concerns_heat_up_amid_the_proposed_keystone_xl_pipeline http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/pipeline_safety_concerns_heat_up_amid_the_proposed_keystone_xl_pipeline#When:13:08:05Z Two weeks after the Exxon pipeline ruptured into the rising waters of the Yellowstone River and there's still no end in sight for Montanans as they work to clean up the crude oil contaminating their land. Pastureland has been ruined, livestock forced to move, and a handful of local residents have reported symptoms of hydrocarbon poisoning. Yet even as the controversy and cleanup continues, another oil pipeline company, TransCanada, is actively lobbying to build the Keystone XL pipeline, a monster three times as large, underneath the iconic Yellowstone River. Two weeks after the Exxon pipeline ruptured into the rising waters of the Yellowstone River and there’s still no end in sight for Montanans as they work to clean up the crude oil contaminating their land. Pastureland has been ruined, livestock forced to move, and a handful of local residents have reported symptoms of hydrocarbon poisoning. Yet even as the controversy and cleanup continues, another oil pipeline company, TransCanada, is actively lobbying to build the Keystone XL pipeline, a monster three times as large, underneath the iconic Yellowstone River. TransCanada’s advocacy is flying in the face of a report released by the University of Nebraska that details the disastrous results of a worst-case scenario spill from Keystone XL. According to the report, a tar sands oil spill from the Keystone XL “into the Platte River in Nebraska would form a plume of oil that could extend more than 450 miles, contaminating drinking water for people as far away as Kansas City, Mo., and threatening wildlife habitat….a worst-case spill in the Sandhills region of Nebraska could pollute 4.9 billion gallons of groundwater with a plume of contaminants 40 feet thick, 500 feet wide and 15 miles long.” TransCanada called the University of Nebraska report’s results “unrealistically optimistic.” This from a company that has not yet been able to submit an environmental impact statement on Keystone XL that the Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t deemed “insufficient.” TransCanada’s CEO also took to the pages of The Hill today to continue its push to reassure Americans that its Keystone XL pipeline would be safe. Thankfully, the LA Times has an editorial today discussing the risks of Keystone XL. Meanwhile the House of Representatives is holding two hearings on pipeline safety this week that will investigate the Yellowstone spill and discuss the safety of other existing and planned pipelines. First, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will hold a hearing today in its Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials about the Exxon pipeline spill in Montana (watch it live online at 10am ET). One of the speakers will be Exxon President, Gary Pruessing. Media accounts have found Exxon to be less than truthful about the damage caused by the Yellowstone spill. Hopefully committee members will hold Exxon accountable on just how much oil the pipeline failure spewed into the Yellowstone River. Second, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will spend Friday in a hearing discussing a draft bill from Reps. Fred Upton and John Mica entitled “The Pipeline Infrastructure and Community Protection Act of 2011.” This bill calls for the Secretary of Transportation to conduct reviews of existing pipeline safety regulations, including studying whether hazardous liquid pipeline regulations are sufficient to regulate the transportation of tar sands crude oil by pipeline and whether any increase in risk of release exists for pipelines transporting such oil. The draft bill also calls for the Secretary of Transportation to review existing pipeline emergency response measures and enact a number of safeguards, such as: Prescribe a regulation to require the use of automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves (or equivalent technology) on pipelines. Prescribe regulations to require the use of excess flow valves on new or entirely replaced distribution branch services, multi-family facilities, and small commercial facilities located in high-density population areas and environmentally sensitive areas. Prescribe minimum safety standards for the pipeline transportation of carbon dioxide in gaseous form. Pipelines have extended lifetimes – 40, 50, 60 years – so these decisions today will have long term impacts on our land, water, and air. Stay tuned. 2011-07-14T13:08:05+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/university_of_nebraska_study_shows_state_department_review_of_keystone_xl_p http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/university_of_nebraska_study_shows_state_department_review_of_keystone_xl_p#When:14:05:20Z Today Dr. John Stansbury, a Professor of Environmental and Water Resources Engineering at the University of Nebraska, released a study of the worst case spill scenarios for TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. His study, the first independent analysis of the worst-case spill scenarios for the Keystone XL pipeline, cites significant flaws in TransCanada’s methodology for calculating both the frequency and severity of expected spills on Keystone XL. The study finds that Keystone XL will have more than eight times as many spills, take more than ten times as long to shut down in the event of a rupture and spill more than six times as much raw tar sands as TransCanada estimates. Today Dr. John Stansbury, a Professor of Environmental and Water Resources Engineering at the University of Nebraska, released a study of the worst case spill scenarios for TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. His study, the first independent analysis of the worst-case spill scenarios for the Keystone XL pipeline, cites significant flaws in TransCanada’s methodology for calculating both the frequency and severity of expected spills on Keystone XL. The study finds that Keystone XL will have more than eight times as many spills, take more than ten times as long to shut down in the event of a rupture and spill more than six times as much raw tar sands as TransCanada estimates. This is significant, as the State Department has relied on TransCanada’s projections to analyze the environmental impacts of Keystone XL. This study provides even more evidence that the environmental review for Keystone XL is deeply flawed and the proposed pipeline presents significant unaddressed safety risks. Download the study (PDF) In particular, the study finds that Keystone XL could spill as much as 7.9 million gallons in Nebraska’s Sandhills above the Ogallala Aquifer and more than 6.9 million gallons of raw tar sands crude oil at the Yellowstone River crossing. After seeing 42,000 gallons of spilled conventional crude contaminate 240 miles of the Yellowstone River, it is clear that additional due diligence is necessary to address the larger risks posed by Keystone XL. Our pipeline system wasn’t designed with raw tar sands in mind. Our pipeline safety regulators admit that they haven’t evaluated the risks of tar sands crude and haven’t been involved in the environmental review for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Meanwhile, the State Department has relied on TransCanada for estimates for many of the project’s environmental impacts. We simply cannot afford to rubber stamp a pipeline that would cross 1,904 waterbodies and the Ogallala Aquifer, the source of drinking water for millions of Americans and over a quarter of U.S. agricultural water. Our landowners, farmers, ranchers, and first responders deserve to have their government do responsible due diligence on their behalf. 2011-07-12T14:05:20+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/u.s._not_ready_for_keystone_xl_worst-case http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/u.s._not_ready_for_keystone_xl_worst-case#When:13:24:05Z Are giant Canadian oil companies fudging their safety analyses to get the mother of all pipelines built across the U.S.? And what could happen if a mega-pipeline has a catastrophic Fukushima-style disaster?Are giant Canadian oil companies fudging their safety analyses to get the mother of all pipelines built across the U.S.? And what could happen if a mega-pipeline has a catastrophic Fukushima-style disaster? A pipeline spill could ravage the heartland’s agriculture sector and economy while pummeling important wildlife habitat. Pipelines have been spilling regularly across the U.S., but those spills could be small peanuts compared to a true disaster that might occur from building the proposed and highly controversial tar sludge pipeline known as Keystone XL. A report released today and spearheaded by a Nebraska academic says the potential frequency and magnitude of oil spills from the tar sands oil project, as well as the consequences of worst-case spills into the Yellowstone, Missouri and Platte Rivers and atop the Ogallala Aquifer, are far worse than the Canadians are letting on to U.S. regulators tasked with approving the dubious project. According to a news story from the Lincoln Journal Star: A worst-case scenario spill from the proposed Keystone XL pipeline into the Platte River in Nebraska would form a plume of oil that could extend more than 450 miles, contaminating drinking water for people as far away as Kansas City, MO and threatening wildlife habitat, according to an independent analysis of the project released Monday. The study by John Stansbury, a professor of water resources engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, also said a worst-case spill in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska could pollute 4.9 billion gallons of groundwater with a plume of contaminants 40 feet thick, 500 feet wide and 15 miles long. “This plume, and other contaminant plumes from the spill, would pose serious health risks to people using that groundwater for drinking water and irrigation,” Stansbury said in the report. In comparison to the nasty 42,000 gallon spill by Exxon last week into Montana’s Yellowstone River, a major spill from the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline into the Platte River in Nebraska could leak 5.9 million gallons of toxic, corrosive tar sands oil and spread pollutants such as carcinogenic benzene in excess of federal health standards hundreds of miles downstream, contaminating drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people as far south as Kansas City, MO. A scene from the recent and deadly Enbridge pipeline disaster. It would be relatively small peanuts compared to a worst-case Keystone XL spill. Can we trust the oil giants and regulators to do the right thing? Not really, says the author. He led an independent analysis of worst-case spill scenarios for four locations along the proposed Keystone XL pipeline route through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. He found that the pipeline’s operator, TransCanada Corp., made significant flawed and inappropriate assumptions about the frequency and severity of expected spills from its pipelines. Although the federal Clean Water Act requires pipeline builders to analyze and make public worst-case spill scenarios and resulting environmental impacts for their projects before beginning operation, TransCanada has yet to adequately do so for the Keystone XL, and the pipeline could be approved before regulators see the conclusions. We’re not kidding when we say Keystone XL is the next great oil disaster in waiting, on par with BP’s Gulf spill last year. But this is a tragedy we can stop. You can help. TAKE ACTION and tell the Obama Administration to reject Keystone XL. 2011-07-11T13:24:05+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/wall_street_journal_support_for_tar_sands_pipeline_based_on_mirage http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/wall_street_journal_support_for_tar_sands_pipeline_based_on_mirage#When:15:47:01Z The Wall Street Journal editorial of July 7, 2011 (Jobs in the pipeline) sets up jobs and energy security against protecting our air and water resources in throwing its support to TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Yet, the editorial’s support for the pipeline is based on a mirage, not on true jobs or energy security. And it barely touches on the darker side of tar sands oil: increased global warming pollution, oil spills and Boreal forest destruction. The best plan for America to achieve jobs and energy security is through investment in clean energy. Only clean energy will give us the homegrown, long-term economic prosperity, environmental safety and energy security that we need.The Wall Street Journal editorial of July 7, 2011 (Jobs in the pipeline) sets up jobs and energy security against protecting our air and water resources in throwing its support to TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Yet, the editorial’s support for the pipeline is based on a mirage, not on true jobs or energy security. And it barely touches on the darker side of tar sands oil: increased global warming pollution, oil spills and Boreal forest destruction. The best plan for America to achieve jobs and energy security is through investment in clean energy. Only clean energy will give us the homegrown, long-term economic prosperity, environmental safety and energy security that we need. Instead, the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would deepen our dependence on the dirtiest oil on the planet, fuel climate change and put our water resources at risk. The pipeline would cross the Yellowstone River in the region of this week’s 42,000 gallon oil spill from an ExxonMobil pipeline. It would then cut through the heart of our largest agricultural aquifer, the Ogallala, carrying bitumen, a tar sands sludge that is far more toxic and risky to pipeline safety than the oil that has sullied the Yellowstone this week. The U.S. already has plenty of tar sands pipeline capacity. The State Department as the agency responsible for permitting this international pipeline has shown it would be more than a decade before the Keystone XL pipeline would do more than shift tar sands oil from its current destination in the Midwest to the Gulf coast. Far from helping America relieve high gas prices, this move could actually raise Midwestern gas prices. A pipeline to the Gulf coast also provides the oil industry their first major deepwater port for tar sands oil which is currently land-locked in Alberta. Once it reaches the Gulf, it is up to the oil companies whether to export the oil or keep it for U.S. markets. Economic analysis is already pointing towards the oil companies taking advantage of the Texas ports for international export. The State Department’s own analysis finds that Keystone XL tar sands will not replace Middle Eastern oil in the United States – only a move to clean energy is likely to do that. The tar sands pipeline does no better on jobs than it does on our environment and pipeline safety. The State Department’s own study finds the pipeline company overstated the number of jobs it would create – by a factor of 13. In fact, a close look at the TransCanada pipeline company claims regarding jobs shows a series of disclaimers that their information is “subject to important risks and uncertainties” and that “actual results or events may differ from those predicted in these forward-looking statements.” The TransCanada predictions are a pretty shaky basis for the economic prosperity scenario put forward by the Wall Street Journal. To gain economic prosperity what we need is stronger investment in clean energy. A University of California at Berkeley study found that clean energy could mean more than 200,000 new jobs just in the same corridor through which the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would run. Overall, the U.S. could gain 918,000 to 1.9 million jobs, and household income could grow by $488 to $1,176 by 2020 with a comprehensive energy and climate policy. Pipeline jobs are largely temporary so these jobs would surely be more welcome. The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is about what is best for oil companies, not what is best for the American people. Rather than using the oil industry’s trumped up claims regarding jobs and security and basing support for the pipeline on a mirage, we should look all the facts clearly in the face and acknowledge that the path for economic prosperity and energy security lies in homegrown clean energy, not in a risky, expensive and dirty source of oil such as tar sands. To let the State Department know that you oppose the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, you can take action at www.stoptar.org 2011-07-07T15:47:01+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/clarifying_facts_about_keystone_xl_pipeline_following_the_yellowstostone_sp http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/clarifying_facts_about_keystone_xl_pipeline_following_the_yellowstostone_sp#When:13:21:13Z The tragic Yellowstone River oil spill has shed light on the need for tougher standards to protect our communities and environment from pipeline spills. The spill shines a spotlight on the need for our pipeline safety regulators to examine the safety risks of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, a pipeline that would move 830,000 barrels per day of corrosive raw tar sands over the Yellowstone River. In the added scrutiny due to the Yellowstone spill, TransCanada advanced claims that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be better built, have lower spill risks, and have faster spill response than Exxon-Mobil’s pipeline that spilled 42,000 gallons of conventional oil into the Yellowstone River. However, there is a stark contrast between these rosy claims and TransCanada’s actual record after one year of operation of its first Keystone tar sands pipeline. As the Obama administration considers building another tar sands pipeline through our nation’s rivers and aquifers, It is critical that the decision be based on accurate information and not on overly-optimistic projections. The tragic Yellowstone River oil spill has shed light on the need for tougher standards to protect our communities and environment from pipeline spills. The spill shines a spotlight on the need for our pipeline safety regulators to examine the safety risks of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, a pipeline that would move 830,000 barrels per day of corrosive raw tar sands over the Yellowstone River. In the added scrutiny due to the Yellowstone spill, TransCanada advanced claims that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be better built, have lower spill risks, and have faster spill response than Exxon-Mobil’s pipeline that spilled 42,000 gallons of conventional oil into the Yellowstone River. However, there is a stark contrast between these rosy claims and TransCanada’s actual record after one year of operation of its first Keystone tar sands pipeline. As the Obama administration considers building another tar sands pipeline through our nation’s rivers and aquifers, It is critical that the decision be based on accurate information and not on overly-optimistic projections. The Yellowstone River spill is just another example of the need for stronger pipeline safety regulations in the United States. In a June hearing in which I testified on pipeline safety oversight, Cynthia Quarterman, the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), said that the U.S. pipeline system was not designed with raw tar sands crude in mind, that safety regulations were not written to address it unique risks, and that PHMSA had not yet been able to study the issue or been involved in the environmental review for Keystone XL. Although a conventional oil spill, the Yellowstone River spill is another indicator that our pipeline safety rules are not strong enough. In the days following the Yellowstone River spill, TransCanada has defended its proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in statements to the press and in a letter to Congressional offices. TransCanada’s claims of safety do not withstand close scrutiny: 1. TransCanada has made many assurances that if and when their proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has a leak, it will be able to shut the pipeline down much faster than Exxon did. Their actions with their other, similar pipeline don’t match their rhetoric – when TransCanada’s brand new, state-of-the art Keystone I spilled 21,000 gallons in May, it took the company forty-four minutes to shut the pipeline down after the spill happened. This appears to be a few minutes faster than Exxon’s response, but TransCanada had the benefit of a landowner that called the spill in. We’ve seen again and again where the theoretical responses of these pipeline operators are far better than their actual response. Unfortunately, the actual spills are the ones that have to be cleaned up. 2. TransCanada is assuring Montanans that the Keystone XL pipeline would be buried deep under rivers and streams in Montana and in other places along its route. Keystone XL would cross 1,904 rivers, streams and reservoirs along its route. TransCanada plans to use horizontal directional drilling, a method of constructing a pipeline twenty or more feet below a riverbed, for thirty-nine of these rivers. At the 1,865 other river, stream and reservoir crossings, TransCanada would build Keystone XL a mere five feet below the riverbed. 3. New reports suggest that safety valves will automatically shut Keystone XL off in the event of a leak, leaving no room for human error. This hasn’t been true for TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline in the Midwest. The information TransCanada has provided the State Department clearly says that safety valves on the upstream side of the large rivers will be “remotely operated.” By “remote” they mean over the Canadian border in Calgary, Alberta. And also, along the 1,980 miles of proposed Keystone XL pipeline, there would be only 136 safety valves – that leaves a lot of rivers and streams uncovered. 4. TransCanada suggests there is little risk of a spill on its Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Even so, the magnitude of its worst case scenario for the segment of their proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would cross the Yellowstone River is significant. The company estimates a potential spill of 24,900 barrels or a little over a million gallons for that section. A similar size tar sands spill near the Kalamazoo River in Michigan is still being cleaned up a year later. And even this figure raises questions, given the fact that Keystone XL’s real-time leak detection system doesn’t register spills less than 700,000 gallons per day (or 1.5-2% of its capacity). The company seems to consider leaks even of that magnitude as too small for more rigorous monitoring and will only rely on aerial inspections that happen every two to three weeks. 5. TransCanada claims that their proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be built of thicker steel than Exxon’s Silvertip pipeline was. That depends. Exxon’s pipeline was 0.5 inches thick. Keystone XL would be between 0.456 inches and 0.748 inches thick. Not much of a difference. 6. TransCanada also says that Keystone XL will operate at lower than allowed pressures. However, these pressures will be much higher than were present in the ExxonMobil or in any conventional oil pipeline. In fact, Keystone XL would operate at nearly twice the pressure of Exxon’s pipeline – the Silvertip had a maximum operating pressure of 960 pounds-force per square inch (PSIG) while Keystone XL must withstand up to 1,600 psig. 7. TransCanada makes much of its 60 year operation history, but much of that experience has been in natural gas, and not oil pipelines. In fact, the State Department decided it was impossible to compare TransCanada’s safety record with the rest of the oil pipeline industry. TransCanada’s first wholly owned oil pipeline in the U.S. is the recently built Keystone I tar sands pipeline to the Midwest. Considering that Keystone I is the youngest pipeline to have been considered an immediate threat to the life, property and the environment by pipeline safety regulators, TransCanada is off to a rocky start. 8. TransCanada claims that the average amount of oil accidentally released on TransCanada’s existing Keystone I tar sands pipeline “is a few dozen liters per incident.” But this math doesn’t add up: depending on which spill estimates you use, the average spill volume for the dozen spill on the U.S. section of the Keystone I line is between 1,460 and 1,950 gallons. More than a few liters, and significantly more than we were told to expect when TransCanada proposed the project. As policymakers and the U.S. public consider whether the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is in the national interest, it is critical that they have the best, most accurate information available to them. Landowners and first responders deserve to know the full extent of the risks to which they will be exposed. After all, if the Keystone XL pipeline is built through our rivers and aquifers, it will be staying there for a very long time. 2011-07-07T13:21:13+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/did_exxon_ignore_an_early_warning_of_the_yellowstone_spill http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/did_exxon_ignore_an_early_warning_of_the_yellowstone_spill#When:15:49:03Z It was two years ago that U.S. regulators first discovered problems with the Exxon pipeline that ruptured this past weekend and spilled 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) of oil into the Yellowstone River. What’s going on here?It was two years ago that U.S. regulators first discovered problems with the Exxon pipeline that ruptured this past weekend and spilled 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) of oil into the Yellowstone River. What’s going on here? In July 2009, federal inspectors with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) found evidence that an above-ground span of Exxon’s pipeline had become submerged under a creek and was piling up debris. Nearly 20 months later, in March of this year, Exxon reported that it was “evaluating control measures to keep future debris from accumulating over the pipeline.” Last weekend, in the same region cited in the inspection, the same pipeline ruptured during record flooding of the Yellowstone River. The big question is whether these two circumstances are related. Correspondence from Exxon describes the location of the span as Pipeline Station “2211 +26 (Goldie Lane)”. That appears to be here, about 10 miles South of Laurel, MT, though without accurate pipeline maps, it’s difficult to know for certain. It’s also difficult to know the precise location of the recent leak, though an AP map shows it to be in the same area. Meanwhile, I’ve put in a call to the PHMSA requesting information on the specific location of the span mentioned in the inspection, and of the recent leak. UPDATE 07/06/11 4:30PM PST: PHMSA says the location cited in the inspection was 10 miles south of the pipeline leak near Riverside Park in Laurel (at 2000+00). Even if unrelated, why is the violation unresolved nearly two years after it was identified by inspectors? Correspondence available on the PHMSA website shows a “Notice of Probable Violation” sent from the Agency to Exxon on February 23, 2011. The notice pertained to an inspection more than 20 months earlier, conducted from July 27-30, 2009. Exxon’s response, dated March 24, 2011, shows that it rectified most of the violations named by PHMSA shortly after the July 2009 inspection. But on the issue of the submerged span, Exxon was still “evaluating control measures.” As flood waters rage near Laurel, the case at PHMSA is still open. In Conversations today, two PHMSA OPS Western Office representatives described a system of approvals within the agency that regularly delays correspondence with operators for months at a time. America’s pipelines are unsafe. Exxon’s spill in Montana is just the latest in a string of accidents as long as the industry is old. And while Big Oil says that it’s learning from its mistakes, even its newest pipelines can’t seem to contain the increasingly corrosive oil mined from Canada’s tar sands. We don’t need more pipelines. Most analysts actually expect a steady decline in US demand for oil. What we do need is a system of regulations and penalties that keep our communities safe from the pipelines already in the ground. 2011-07-06T15:49:03+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/yellowstone_oil_spill_demonstrates_deep_problem_with_reactive_pipeline_safe http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/yellowstone_oil_spill_demonstrates_deep_problem_with_reactive_pipeline_safe#When:13:32:30Z Exxon-Mobil’s 42,000 gallon oil spill in the Yellowstone River reveals a troubling problem with the safety of the United States pipeline system. It may take years to realize the full extent of the long-term damage that this spill has caused to one of our nation’s last wild rivers. However, this spill is a clear warning that our pipeline safety regulations are not strong enough to provide adequate protection for sensitive resources like the Yellowstone River. This spill should be a wakeup call for the Obama administration as it considers a proposal to build Keystone XL, a far larger pipeline which would carry corrosive raw tar sands across the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers.Exxon-Mobil’s 42,000 gallon oil spill in the Yellowstone River reveals a troubling problem with the safety of the United States pipeline system. It may take years to realize the full extent of the long-term damage that this spill has caused to one of our nation’s last wild rivers. However, this spill is a clear warning that our pipeline safety regulations are not strong enough to provide adequate protection for sensitive resources like the Yellowstone River. This spill should be a wakeup call for the Obama administration as it considers a proposal to build Keystone XL, a far larger pipeline which would carry corrosive raw tar sands across the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. Several days after the Yellowstone spill, pipeline safety regulators at the Department of Transportation reacted by issuing Exxon-Mobil’s Silvertip pipeline a Corrective Action Order (CAO) which requires the company to make safety improvements to the pipeline before it can restart. In issuing the order, Secretary LaHood said “when companies are not living up to our safety standards, we will take action.” Here’s the problem – Exxon was living up to the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) safety standards. True, Exxon’s decision to build an unprotected crude pipeline only 5 to 8 feet below a flood prone river appears to have been imprudent. Exxon’s decision to restart the pipeline in May despite heavy flooding was foolish. However, the real story is that this string of reckless decisions was permitted by both our pipeline safety regulations and the regulators who enforce them. This reactive approach to pipeline safety regulation is evidenced by the Department of Transportation’s approach to Keystone XL and other pipelines carrying raw tar sands crude. In her recent testimony to Congress on pipeline safety, Cynthia Quarterman, the Administrator of DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), conceded that her agency did not have a handle on the safety risks that raw tar sands pipelines pose. Specifically, she said that the U.S. pipeline system was not designed with the risks of raw tar sands crude in mind, her agency had not evaluated those risks, and she did not know whether current safety regulations were sufficient to address them. Despite these serious unknowns, her agency has not actively engaged in the consideration of the Keystone XL We do not need regulators to tell us that a pipeline gushing tens of thousands of gallons of crude into the Yellowstone River isn’t operating as safely as it should be. We need our regulators to proactively evaluate the risks of spills and create standards to ensure that our wild blue rivers don’t turn black in the first place. And the stakes are getting higher. Exxon’s Silvertip pipeline, with a capacity of 40,000 barrels, spilled an estimated 42,000 gallons before it could be shut off. This spill has sickened residents, wrecked havoc with ranchers who use the river for irrigation, and may have devastating long-term impacts for the ecology of the river. Early on, EPA noted that because of river conditions, very little of the spilled oil is likely to be recovered. Exxon has positively spun this to say that river conditions are ‘dispersing’ the oil. What this really means is that they are not able to clean the oil up as it contaminates stretches of the Yellowstone River far downstream of the spill site. The proposed 830,000 barrel per day Keystone XL tar sands pipeline crosses the same Yellowstone River as well as 1,903 other rivers, streams and reservoirs across the United States. A similar spill on Keystone XL would have resulted in nearly a million gallons of raw tar sands crude spilling into the Yellowstone River with potentially catastrophic results. TransCanada, the operator of this pipeline, has had an abysmal record. Its first tar sands pipeline, Keystone I, has had thirty three leaks in the U.S. and Canada in less than one year of operation and is the youngest pipelines in the U.S. to be deemed by regulators a threat to life, property and the environment. Meanwhile, the State Department is rushing forward in its evaluation of Keystone XL without a thorough study of its risks. The State Department needs to seriously evaluate the risks Keystone XL presents to our communities, environment and water when it considers whether the project is in the national interest. An accident that should have been prevented is not really an accident. Tragedies like the Yellowstone River spill can be prevented by strong safety regulations and the proactive action of regulators. Today we are in desperate need of both. To take action, please go to www.stoptar.org and send a letter to Secretary of State Clinton to say no to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. 2011-07-06T13:32:30+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/yellowstone_river_spill_shows_dangers_of_riskier_keystone_xl_tar_sands_oil_ http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/yellowstone_river_spill_shows_dangers_of_riskier_keystone_xl_tar_sands_oil_#When:19:41:09Z Once again this weekend, we saw a clear example of how water and oil don’t mix when an Exxon oil pipeline spewed around 40,000 gallons into the wild Yellowstone River in Montana. The mess is likely a wakeup call for officials in Montana. And is yet another reminder for pipeline regulators around the country that we have a problem. It’s been a bad year with spills in Michigan, some big messes in Canada, spills all along first Keystone tar sands oil pipeline in the Great Plains, a spill in downtown Salt Lake City and now in the longest undammed river in the lower 48 states. Once again this weekend, we saw a clear example of how water and oil don’t mix when an Exxon oil pipeline spewed around 40,000 gallons into the wild Yellowstone River in Montana. The mess is likely a wakeup call for officials in Montana. And is yet another reminder for pipeline regulators around the country that we have a problem. It’s been a bad year with spills in Michigan, some big messes in Canada, spills all along first Keystone tar sands oil pipeline in the Great Plains, a spill in downtown Salt Lake City and now in the longest undammed river in the lower 48 states. As these spills take a toll on American waters, landscapes, and communities. I wonder when we will get focused on fixing our faulty infrastructure to stop these messes—-and if we can afford to build another mega-pipeline across our most sensitive water resources without fixing the problem. Montana’s Governor Schweitzer is rightly focused on making sure the cleanup of this spill happens quickly and thoroughly. As a next step Montana should also be questioning the safety of proposed new pipelines such as TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would also cross the wild Yellowstone River. Tar sands oil from Canada is more corrosive, more prone to spills, and more difficult to clean up than conventional oil. The Exxon oil pipeline spill is another indicator that we should not be transporting even more dangerous and dirty tar sands oil endangering our precious rivers, agricultural lands, communities and wildlife. The ExxonMobil pipeline that runs under the Yellowstone River in south central Montana broke late Friday night just west of Billings. The river is running fast and high full of snow melt from the Rockies. Despite the work of cleanup crews, it is feared that oil has travelled far downstream in a region critical for irrigation and important as fish and bird habitat. The Yellowstone River runs into the Missouri River meaning that an oil spill in the Yellowstone can have a wide-reaching impact. News reports show pelicans and turtles that have been oiled. The lower Yellowstone River is home to the rarest and largest freshwater fish in North America – the pallid sturgeon – and is also home to the endangered Least Tern. As we saw from the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf, toxins in the oil can take a lethal toll on aquatic life of all kinds. Exposure to these toxins can also cause genetic damage, liver disease, cancer and harm to reproductive and immune systems. Clean up can take a long time. For example, almost at the one year anniversary of a spill of 840,000 gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, clean efforts are still underway. The full extent of the damage usually takes years to unfold. The herring population collapsed in Prince William Sound, for example, three years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We don’t yet know the extent of the damage from this oil spill – or what it will mean for the people and wildlife that depend on the river system. What we do know is that this type of pipeline spill is not acceptable. Exxon says that the oil is dissipating. I worry that means that Exxon is not able to capture the oil to clean it up with the river running so high and fast. In the same way, TransCanada has characterized the 12 tar sands oil spills in just the first year of its Keystone One pipeline as “business as usual.” Surely, this is not a time to be granting a permit to an even more likely to leak pipeline such as the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline to cross the Yellowstone River in Montana. This is a time to be re-examining our pipeline safety regulations and assessing the safety risks of new proposed pipelines such as TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline that would carry even more corrosive, likely to spill and difficult to clean up substances such as tar sands from Canada. 2011-07-05T19:41:09+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/exxon_mobil_oil_pipeline_ruptures_under_montanas_yellowstone_river http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/exxon_mobil_oil_pipeline_ruptures_under_montanas_yellowstone_river#When:17:48:39Z We’re just learning about an Exxon Mobil oil spill in Montana’s Yellowstone County. Officials are now scrambling to protect the communities and wildlife that depend on the Yellowstone River. [Photos available on NWF site]We’re just learning about an Exxon Mobil oil spill in Montana’s Yellowstone County. Officials are now scrambling to protect the communities and wildlife that depend on the Yellowstone River: Hundreds of barrels of crude oil spilled into Montana’s Yellowstone River after an ExxonMobil pipeline beneath the riverbed ruptured, sending a plume 25 miles downstream and forcing temporary evacuations, officials said. The break near Billings in south-central Montana fouled the riverbank and forced municipalities and irrigation districts Saturday to close intakes. The river has no dams on its way to its confluence with the Missouri River just across the Montana border in North Dakota. It was unclear how far the plume might travel. Exxon Mobil is currently estimating the gusher at about 42,000 gallons of oil (1,000 barrels). The oil is moving downstream at 5 to 7 miles an hour. Oil in Montana’s Yellowstone River (NWF’s Alexis Bonogofsky) UPDATE: NWF’s Alexis Bonogofsky lives on the Yellowstone River in Montana and passes along this account: The pipe ruptured Thursday night at around 11:30. I woke up around 7:45 and went outside to do chores (let goats out to graze, feed and water chickens, let horses out etc.). I walked down to our bottom pasture because the River was supposed to flood and I wanted to see if it had come over its banks. Sure enough, there was about 2 feet of water in the pasture. I got this overwhelming smell of hydrocarbons (very distinct smell especially around here because there are 3 refineries). I checked our local paper and saw that a pipeline had ruptured. Even though this had been going on for over 7 hours, and we are right on the River, we received no call, no warning..nothing. I had to find out about it by seeing it in our pastures. Apparently they evacuated people further up stream that were closer to the pipeline. I spent all day yesterday calling our Montana Department of Environmental Quality who told me to call my local Department of Emergency Services. When I called DES, I got an answering machine that said they were on vacation. I was told repeatedly to call an Exxon hotline where the people that answered knew nothing about cleanup, if the oil is hazardous (which it is) and what was going on. They were just there to “take our information.” I called our County Health Department because they told people that the oil was just an “irritant.” When I talked to the lady there, she told me they were taking their information directly from Exxon and had done NO independent research on the health effects of exposure to crude oil or the chemicals in it. I saw birds trying to take off that couldn’t because of oil on their wings, I saw a spiny soft shell turtle dive into a glob of oil. The government is telling us that Exxon is going to take care of everything and that they are doing oversight. I have seen no indication of this. I have called so many people that I know more than our government does about what is going on. We finally got a public relations person from Exxon to call us and he wouldn’t tell us what chemicals are in the oil or if any had been added. He told us to stay away from it and that we shouldn’t document the effects on the property “just to be safe” and yet no health warning has gone out to the public. They also told me “off the record” that I should move my livestock away from where the spill has impacted our farm. There is a press conference sometime this morning with our DES and EPA and Exxon. We are going to go. Insurance agents for Exxon are already trying to get a hold of people to prevent people from organizing. Our summer pastures are ruined. While the oil and gas industry likes to paint spills like this as an aberration, the National Wildlife Federation has documented that oil and gas disasters are tragically common: According to the report, from 2000 to 2010, the oil and gas industry accounted for hundreds of deaths, explosions, fires, seeps, and spills as well as habitat and wildlife destruction in the United States. These disasters demonstrate that the BP incident is not merely an accident but an industry pattern that places profit ahead of communities, local economies, and the environment. Now the oil industry wants to build a new pipeline cutting right through America’s heartland. The Keystone XL pipeline wouldn’t carry just any oil – it would carry tar sands, one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet. But we still have a chance to protect the people and wildlife along the proposed pipeline route. Please take a moment right now to ask President Obama to say no to tar sands. 2011-07-03T17:48:39+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/enbridge_deal_raises_a_203_million_question http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/enbridge_deal_raises_a_203_million_question#When:15:27:51Z Enbridge, the company responsible for the worst oil spill in Michigan state history, is now enlisting Wall St. to help foot the bill for cleaning up its mess — which means the banks backing the $203 million deal have some explaining to do.Enbridge, the company responsible for the worst oil spill in Michigan state history, is now enlisting Wall St. to help foot the bill for cleaning up its mess — which means the banks backing the $203 million deal have some explaining to do. Last July, an aging pipeline operated by Enbridge Energy Partners ruptured near Marshall Mich., spilling nearly 900,000 gallons of tar sands crude. The toxic ooze ultimately coated 37 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed, forcing local residents from their homes and sickening hundreds of others. Enbridge is facing Federal charges of criminal negligence and the area remains closed even to property owners due to ongoing contamination. This was not an isolated incident. Enbridge was also responsible for two other major spills in Illinois and Canada’s North West Territories within the same year. On Monday, Enbridge announced that it is offering investors a $203 million equity stake in its U.S. pipelines business, in part to pay off its debts. According to regulatory filings, Bank of America will lead the deal, joined by 10 other banks, including RBC. All of which begs the question: Are bank commitments just words on paper? The deal raises big questions about whether these banks are taking their environmental commitments seriously. Just for example, take BofA and RBC. Like many banks, both tout recently minted environmental policies that supposedly apply special “due dilligence” procedures to ensure that all clients meet the banks’ environmental standards. Bank of America claims they “consider environmental sensitivity an important component of our credit, investment, underwriting and payment procedures.” Last year, we applauded RBC for developing a new policy including new underwriting safeguards aimed specifically at protecting water quality. Both banks also maintain that their policies require clients to comply with environmental laws and regulations. A bright light on Enbridge So then, what about Enbridge? Beyond the debacle unfolding in Michigan, the company has a long record of safety violations. Last August, federal officials announced more than $2.4 million in civil fines against the company for maintenance and safety problems in Minnesota, Louisiana and Oklahoma dating back to 2006. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, “two Enbridge employees were killed when repairs to an Enbridge pipeline on their Lakehead system in Clearbrook, Minn. caused leaking crude oil to ignite.” The investigation “found Enbridge failed to safely and adequately perform maintenance and repair activities, clear the designated work area from possible sources of ignition, and hire properly trained and qualified workers.” If RBC, BofA and other banks involved in this deal want to maintain a shred of credibility on “corporate social responsibility,” they have some explaining to do. 2011-06-30T15:27:51+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/alberta_caribou_herds_could_perish_in_30_years_with_unchecked_tar_sands_dev http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/alberta_caribou_herds_could_perish_in_30_years_with_unchecked_tar_sands_dev#When:15:17:17Z Rushing the permitting of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a bad idea and a new study on the Alberta caribou herds gives us one more reason why the Obama Administration needs to slow down and do a more thorough environmental review. Alberta claims that it is managing the environmental impacts of tar sands production – but surely extinction of caribou in the tar sands region is not good practice. No pipeline is worth extinction of major caribou populations.Rushing the permitting of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a bad idea and a new study on the Alberta caribou herds gives us one more reason why the Obama Administration needs to slow down and do a more thorough environmental review. Alberta claims that it is managing the environmental impacts of tar sands production – but surely extinction of caribou in the tar sands region is not good practice. No pipeline is worth extinction of major caribou populations. The new study entitled “The influences of wolf predation, habitat loss, and human activity on the caribou and moose in the Alberta oil sands” indicates that tar sands development is having a major impact on caribou and could be detrimental to the caribou herd in the tar sands region. As this recent New York Times article on the study summarizes, “Humans are a much bigger problem than wolves for a caribou herd in the oil sands area of Alberta, Canada.” In other studies, scientists have indicated that if development trends continue, within 30 years the caribou herd on the east side of the Athabasca River could go extinct. While Alberta and Canada like to make claims that they are effectively managing the tar sands, Alberta’s caribou protection plans are so ineffective several Canadian environmental groups have taken the issue to court this month. Alberta’s Lower Athabasca Regional Plan is no different, only protecting 11% of caribou habitat. Tar sands are a highly polluting, high-carbon fuel that can be extracted in Alberta, Canada. This alone ought to be enough to make the Obama administration think twice before approving the 2000 mile Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Alberta to Texas. The utter mismanagement of the tar sands region, Boreal forest and associated species including caribou should make this decision a no-brainer. The Alberta and Canada governments and tar sands industry groups have advocated for removing wolves as a means to bring back the caribou population, but this study – commissioned by Statoil Canada, which has leases in the tar sands – found that removing wolves would not be an effective means to deal with the problem, but could harm the ecosystem. Of concern, despite scientists making it clear that killing wolves is not an effective way of easing pressures on caribou, the Edmonton Journal reports that “Over the past five years, the government of Alberta has spent more than $1 million poisoning wolves with strychnine and shooting them from the air. In all, more than 500 wolves in the Little Smoky River region have been killed.” While this region does not contain tar sands – rather, there has been forestry and other oil and gas development contributing to caribou decline – it is reasonable to assume that Alberta will likely soon start killing wolves in Northeastern Alberta rather than protecting habitat from industry. Mismanagement of the tar sands and of its impacts on communities and wildlife is not a new story in Alberta. In April, I blogged about Alberta’s Draft Lower Athabasca Integrated Regional Plan, which would only protect 11% of the region’s caribou habitat. Groups from the United States and European Union are so concerned about this inadequate plan that NRDC and fifteen other groups wrote an open letter to the Government of Canada – published in the Edmonton Journal on June 17 – asking Alberta to address the serious weaknesses in the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan. The letter states that: The LARP fails to meet the Government of Alberta’s purported goal of healthy air, water, land and biodiversity that support healthy ecosystems and world-class conservation areas. The plan does not establish a regional disturbance limit, halt water withdrawals from the Athabasca River during periods of low flow, define limits of pollution in the Athabasca River, or adequately protect caribou habitat. Ultimately, our groups request in the letter that the Government of Alberta and Government of Canada commission an independent panel to conduct an assessment of the LARP and recommend improvements. Just days after the publication of the letter, Ecojustice, on behalf of the Pembina Institute and Alberta Wilderness Association went to court for a lawsuit launched last summer, seeking a court order to force Environment Minister Peter Kent to recommend emergency protection of critical habitat for threatened caribou herds in northeastern Alberta. In the affidavit from the Canadian Federal Government from March of this year in response to the lawsuit, the government acknowledges Alberta’s mismanagement of the caribou: Overall, Alberta has not, to date, effectively managed the cumulative effects within caribou range and has not applied appropriate mitigation (e.g., habitat restoration, minimizing footprint) in a coordinated landscape-level approach to conserve caribou. The level of habitat disturbance is above 45% for 12 of the 13 local populations. This level of disturbance is beyond the biologically acceptable threshold for self-sustaining local populations as evidenced by the continued decline of most boreal caribou local populations in the province. Yet they go on to argue that losing all the Alberta caribou herds is not that significant – and that they are therefore not required to enact an emergency order, essentially making a de facto decision to allow all Alberta’s caribou herds to go extinct to support maximum levels of tar sands development. We hope that the Canadian courts will make the right decision and take action to protect caribou habitat. However, the bottom line is that Canada and Alberta are not taking environmental protection and management of the tar sands seriously. Currently, the State Department is in the process of reviewing the application for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would run 2000 miles from Alberta to Texas, putting American lands, waters and people at risk. At a time when we desperately need to be transitioning to a clean energy future, it makes no sense to build a pipeline to pump nearly a million barrels per day of some of the dirtiest, most irresponsibly extracted oil in the world to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The United States should send a clear message to Canada that they need to clean up the tar sands and protect the Boreal forest and its wildlife by saying no to this dangerous pipeline. Take action to stop the Keystone XL pipeline at www.nrdc.org/NoKXL. 2011-06-30T15:17:17+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/bonus_credits_for_ccs_weaken_albertas_greenhouse_gas_regulations http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/bonus_credits_for_ccs_weaken_albertas_greenhouse_gas_regulations#When:18:55:57Z Wouldn't it be nice if your loonies turned into toonies overnight? And if they did, don't you think you might end up spending more because of those bonus dollars? Unfortunately, that's exactly the deal Alberta is now offering to some companies — and the result will be more greenhouse gas pollution. Wouldn’t it be nice if your loonies turned into toonies overnight? And if they did, don’t you think you might end up spending more because of those bonus dollars? Unfortunately, that’s exactly the deal Alberta is now offering to some companies — and the result will be more greenhouse gas pollution. Here’s the situation: the Government of Alberta, along with many companies, wants to support carbon capture and storage. This technology, known as CCS, would see companies capture their greenhouse gas emissions and store them deep underground, rather than allowing them to escape into the atmosphere where they contribute to global warming. Alberta is counting on CCS to deliver 70 per cent [external link] of the emission reductions it needs to hit its 2050 emission reduction target. The problem is that most applications of CCS cost well over $100/tonne [external link], while Alberta’s government is charging companies a maximum of $15/tonne for their greenhouse gas pollution. In its first attempt to close the gap, back in 2008, the province committed $2 billion in public subsidies [external link] to support CCS projects. Today, it added a second incentive [external link]: giving companies bonus offset credits for every tonne of pollution they reduce using certain CCS projects. These will initially be given out at a two-for-one rate (i.e. two credits for every tonne sequestered), which will decline if a national carbon price is introduced. Understanding Alberta’s offset system An offset is an emission reduction that takes place outside of the mandatory targets companies have to hit under Alberta’s specified gas emitters regulation. Companies are allowed to buy offset credits as a replacement for improving the environmental performance in their own operations. But that exchange only works if the offset credit actually represents an emission reduction: a tonne of pollution from an upgrader needs to be cancelled out by a real tonne of reduction at, for example, a wind farm in southern Alberta. The government’s proposal of two-for-one offset credits gives some companies that want to do CCS a financial bonus, which makes it easier for those companies to invest in the technology. But it also introduces offset credits into the system that are not tied to any actual reductions. Companies will then use those credits to pollute more. In the process, these artificial offsets will cancel out the emission reduction benefit of doing CCS in the first place. Double credit for CCS With bonus credits allowed into the offset system, CCS technology allows emissions under Alberta’s emission regulation to increase. Figure 1 shows how this works. If you reward every tonne of greenhouse gas pollution reduced with one offset credit, you don’t increase total emissions. But if you reward companies two credits for every one tonne of reduction, those imaginary credits will be bought by other companies so that they don’t have to reduce their own emissions. The net result is that overall emissions go up. If companies buy all the two-for-one offsets available, Alberta’s greenhouse gas pollution will rise by one tonne for every tonne that CCS reduces. That’s exactly the opposite of what CCS is supposed to accomplish. Pembina has been raising questions [external link] about the credibility of many Alberta offsets for years. By creating a class of credits that is not based on real emission reductions, today’s announcement weakens a system that already needed strengthening. Better options are available Perhaps the most frustrating part of Alberta’s decision is that it didn’t have to be this way. The government had much simpler and greener options available to reach the same goal. Rather than watering down the offset system, Alberta could have simply increased its price on emissions. The two-for-one offset bonus gives companies about $15/tonne of extra revenue for CCS. Instead of granting imaginary offset credits, why not just increase the price that all companies pay from its current low level of $15/tonne to $30/tonne? That step would have helped make CCS more economically viable, but it would also send a signal that would encourage other companies across Alberta to cut their own emissions, even if CCS isn’t part of the equation for them. Economic analysis [PDF] shows that Alberta won’t hit its 2050 emission reduction target without a much higher price on pollution than companies pay today (a price of over $100/tonne). So increasing the carbon price in Alberta is a step that needs to happen anyway. Alberta’s companies have continued to prosper under the current price, which represents only a tiny increase in costs for most industries, so there’s no need to fear the effects of a higher one. In fact, in a report [external link] released earlier this year, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy showed that Canada would see strong economic growth across the country even if we lead the United States in adopting a broad-based price on greenhouse gas pollution. A second important step would be to make CCS mandatory for new facilities in Alberta right away (including major expansions or retrofits that extend the life of existing facilities), and over time to require it at existing facilities as well. Companies in the oilsands, chemical and power generation sectors have huge potential for CCS; a regulation would make sure that potential is realized. And if the Government of Alberta wanted to get creative, those two policies are only the beginning. In 2008, Pembina worked with Dr. David Keith from the University of Calgary to map out policy choices to close the CCS “cost gap” [PDF]. Some of the proposals that research generated included carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems, but also tax credits, loan guarantees and public ownership of CCS infrastructure. Bonus offset credits was on the list as well. We tested that list of choices with a group of Alberta experts. Interestingly, the group rejected the bonus credit option that Alberta’s government announced today (see page 18 of this [PDF] report), citing its administrative complexity and unfair distribution of costs. As the group pointed out, why should one technology receive multiple credits over another? It’s a very good question. But Alberta has placed some important limits on the bonus credit system. They would not apply to coal burning plants or enhanced oil recovery schemes. The bonus credits will be issued for no more than 10 years and, once issued, would only be valid for three years. In theory, fewer bonus credits would be issued if the price of carbon increases. CCS has a role to play Our concern about today’s announcement may give the impression that we’re opposed to CCS — we’re not. If it’s used under the right conditions, we believe that CCS technology has the potential to reduce emissions significantly, although it will always be just one part of a portfolio of solutions. We also understand some of the non-environmental benefits of deploying CCS in Alberta — benefits like creating some jobs and developing expertise in a technology that will be in demand around the world. But none of that should come at the cost of increasing emissions. Supporting CCS doesn’t have to mean adopting flawed accounting based on “reductions” that exist on paper only, not in reality. Alberta’s government had a range of options to choose from to support this technology, but today’s announcement shows that it made the wrong choice. 2011-06-24T18:55:57+00:00 http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/despite_top_5_reasons_to_oppose_tar_sands_bill_passes http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/despite_top_5_reasons_to_oppose_tar_sands_bill_passes#When:18:59:05Z Even though a coalition of groups including the Sierra Club sending a letter to House reps urging them to oppose Representatives Lee Terry and Gene Green's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline bill (HR 1938), the measure just passed today in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.Even though a coalition of groups including the Sierra Club sending a letter to House reps urging them to oppose Representatives Lee Terry and Gene Green’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline bill (HR 1938), the measure just passed today in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill would expedite the approval of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, which is currently under consideration by the Department of State for a Presidential Permit. Today’s vote to reward polluters came amid reports of a dozen spills and pipeline accidents by TransCanada in just the last year. “Hurrying to grant TransCanada yet another, even larger pipeline into our nation’s Heartland makes no sense and only serves to reward corporate polluters’ reckless behavior,” said Kate Colarulli, Associate Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Oil campaign. “There is no upside to Keystone XL. The proposed toxic tar sands pipeline would run through six states in the Midwest and endanger the drinking and irrigation water supplies of farmlands and millions of families. What’s more, this massive dirty energy project would raise gas prices and allow Canada to use American resources and ports to export their dirty fuels.” And just in case you needed more reasons to oppose this bill that would hand TransCanada its Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on a silver platter, then do read these Top Five Reasons to Oppose HR 1938: Tar sands pipelines are not safe. The Keystone XL pipeline will raise gas prices. Studies show that the Keystone XL will not lead to energy security nor increase oil supply to the U.S. The jobs numbers don’t add up. H.R. 1938 rushes to lock us into the most destructive oil on the planet. There are more details on each of these reasons right here in this fact sheet (DOC) from our friends at NWF. Meanwhile, there’s some big time news in the works regarding opposition to this proposed tar sands oil pipeline…Want to hang out with Danny Glover, James Hansen, Bill McKibben and some other heavyweights? Maybe we should clarify – are you interested in getting arrested with some celebrities? Those three and many others are encouraging volunteers to come to Washington, DC, to participate in civil disobedience regarding the U.S. State Department’s on-going review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. Bill McKibben sent out the letter Wednesday, and here’s an excerpt (read the full text in this article): (W)e’re pretty sure that without serious pressure the Keystone Pipeline will get its permit from Washington. A wonderful coalition of environmental groups has built a strong campaign across the continent – from Cree and Dene indigenous leaders to Nebraska farmers, they’ve spoken out strongly against the destruction of their land. We need to join them, and to say even if our own homes won’t be crossed by this pipeline, our joint home – the earth – will be wrecked by the carbon that pours down it. And we need to say something else, too: it’s time to stop letting corporate power make the most important decisions our planet faces. We don’t have the money to compete with those corporations, but we do have our bodies, and beginning in mid August many of us will use them. We will, each day through Labor Day, march on the White House, risking arrest with our trespass. We will do it in dignified fashion, demonstrating that in this case we are the conservatives, and that our foes – who would change the composition of the atmosphere are dangerous radicals. The opposition to tar sands and this proposed pipeline is increasing