Environmental issues
See also: Environmental risks of the Keystone XL pipeline
Some environmental groups, citizens, and politicians have raised concerns about the potential impacts of the Keystone XL extension.[42][43][44] One concern is that the pipeline could pollute air and water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife.[20] Its original route crosses the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world.[45] The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture.[46] A major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.[47] After opposition for laying the pipeline in this area, TransCanada agreed to change the route and skip the Sand Hills.[34]
Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002.[46] Opponents claim that TransCanada applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal.[47]
In its March 2010 report, the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that "the Keystone XL Pipeline undermines the U.S. commitment to a clean energy economy", instead delivering dirty fuel from oil sands and high costs.[14] In December, 2010, No Tar Sands Oil campaign was launched. Sponsored by a number of action groups, including Corporate Ethics International, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Rainforest Action Network and featuring TV ads on CNN, MSNBC, and Comedy Central, the $500,000 US campaign asked that people urge President Obama to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from being built by visiting The National Wildlife Federation website. [48] On August 21, 2011, The New York Times published an editorial opposing the Keystone XL pipeline because of the additional greenhouse gas emissions and the probability of oil spills in sensitive areas.[49]
In October 2011, The New York Times questioned the impartiality of the environmental analysis of the pipeline done by Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston. The study found that the pipeline would have`limited adverse environmental impacts, but was authored by a firm that had "previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a 'major client' in its marketing materials." According to The New York Times, legal experts questioned whether the US government was "flouting the intent" of the Federal National Environmental Policy Act which "[was] meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects."[50] The report prompted 14 senators and congressmen to ask the State Department inspector general on October 26 "to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process" for reviewing environmental impact.[51]
TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has described the Keystone Pipeline as "routine," noting that TransCanada has been building similar pipelines in North America for half a century and that there are 200,000 miles (320,000 km) of similar oil pipelines in the United States today. He also stated that the Keystone Pipeline will include 57 improvements above standard requirements demanded by U.S. regulators so far, making it "the safest pipeline ever built."[52] Rep. Ed Whitfield, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce concurred, saying "this is the most technologically advanced and safest pipeline ever proposed."[53] However, while TransCanada had asserted that a set of 57 conditions will ensure Keystone XL's safe operation, some investigative journalists asserted that all but a few of these conditions simply restate current minimum standards.[54]
In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto on September 23, 2011, Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, sharply criticized opponents of oil sands development and the pipeline, arguing that:
The total area that has been affected by surface mining represents only 0.1% of Canada's boreal forest.
The oil sands account for about 0.1% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.
Electricity plants powered by coal in the U.S. generate almost 40 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than Canada's oil sands (the coal-fired electricity plants in the State of Wisconsin alone produce the equivalent of the entire GHG emissions of the oil sands).
California bitumen is more GHG-intensive than the oil sands.
Oliver criticized opponents of the pipeline, stating that all of the above facts are ignored by "celebrity protestors."[55]
Writing in the National Post, Diane Francis argued that opposition to the pipeline "makes no sense because emissions from the oil sands are a fraction of the emissions from coal and equivalent to California heavy crude oils or ethanol" and questioned why "None of these has been getting the same attention as the oil sands and this pipeline."[56]
