Since 2008, the Canadian company TransCanada has sought approval to begin construction on a 875 mile pipeline known as the Keystone XL Pipeline. The proposed pipeline would carry both tar sand oil from Canada and lighter oil from the Bakken Formation in the United States and extend from Alberta, Canada to Steel City, Nebraska ultimately connecting it to the Gulf Coast of Texas. (Image Courtesy of Politifact).
If approved, the Keystone XL Pipeline would double U.S. imports of tar sand oil and transport it to refineries on the Gulf Coast for international export. The pipeline would help usher 830,000 barrels of oil into the U.S. Because the pipeline crosses international boarders, TransCanada was required to file an application for permit. As of today the Keystone XL Pipeline original 2008 application has been denied and TransCanada’s new application is still awaiting approval.
To receive approval, it must be determined that the project will best serve national interest. Although the pipeline economically benefits the U.S. with the creation of jobs and energy independence, approval has yet to be made due in large part to environmental concerns. Headlining the environmental argument is Keystone XL’s negative contribution to carbon pollution and climate change. Environmentalists argue that because tar sand oil requires more energy-intensive processing and refining, it will directly increase carbon emissions far greater than conventional oil. In addition, opponents to the pipeline fear forest destruction, waste water pollution, and pipeline spills. Opponents argue that by blocking the pipeline a transportation bottleneck would be created and the development of the oil sands would be greatly reduced.
In response and according to law, the U.S. Department of State was required to consider the environmental impact of reasonable alternatives to the Keystone XL Pipeline. The State Department published a detailed study investigating three alternatives to the pipeline. The “No Action Alternatives” include Rail/Pipeline, Rail/Tanker, and Rail Direct to the Gulf Coast. Rail/Pipeline includes transporting the oil by rail to existing pipelines in the U.S. which then transport the oil to final destination. Rail/Tanker includes transporting the oil to a western Canadian port to then be shipped into the U.S. by tanker. Finally, Rail Direct to Gulf Coast simply includes transporting the oil completely by rail to the Gulf Coast. You can access the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement published by the U.S. Department of State here.
It is important to note that the statement published by the U.S. Department of State assumes that the alternatives to the pipeline are calculated as moving the same quantity of oil. That is, if the Keystone XL pipeline is projected to usher 830,000 barrels of oil per day, it is also assumed the alternatives would also usher that same volume. The State Department chose to estimate using 830,000 barrels per day and 100,000 barrels per day and their impact on metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
The findings by the State Department indicate that the three researched alternatives to the Keystone XL pipeline all have a greater negative impact on carbon emissions than the proposed pipeline alone. Under the Rail/Pipeline scenario, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted is projected to increase 42% more than if the Keystone XL Pipeline were approved. The Rail/Tanker scenario projects a 40% increase in carbon emissions and the Rail Direct scenario projects a 28% increase.
The environmental issues raised by Keystone XL opponents are concerning and cannot be ignored. However, the hope that a complete block of the pipeline is in the best interest of the environment does not have much merit. If demand is great enough, companies will find ways to access and import the oil from Canada. As the U.S. Department of State made clear, if the Keystone XL pipeline is blocked and alternative methods are employed such as rail or tanker, greater environmental harm could result. Instead of choosing between the two evils, environmentalists, oil companies, and the government should push for alternative methods (extraction, processing, vehicles, etc.) that serve to meet the demand for oil but protect the environment.