Keystone criticisms ‘far from reality’
Premier defends pipeline, oilsands in Washington speech
WASHINGTON — The polarized debate over the Keystone XL pipeline suffers from “glaring deficiencies” that are overshadowing the truth, Premier Alison Redford told a Washington crowd Tuesday in a discussion repeatedly interrupted by protesters.
“The most basic truth is that the stark choice Keystone’s opponents have put at the heart of the debate is an illusion,” Redford said in a strongly worded speech to the Brookings Institution.
“Too many of the arguments deployed against Keystone are far too far from reality. They proclaim that either you stand against the oilsands, or you write off the environment, along with any hope for a sustainable existence.”
Redford said that stance is “completely wrong.”
To put the oilsands into perspective, Redford said they contribute 21 per cent of Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions, seven per cent of Canada’s emissions and less than 0.15 per cent of the global total.
She added the Canadian oilsands, in total, produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the electric power plants in Ohio, in Indiana, and even Iowa.
The speech was part of Redford’s two-day swing into Washington touting the benefits of the proposed 1,800-kilometre Keystone XL pipeline.
The line would carry 830,000 barrels per day of oil from northern Alberta to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The TransCanada project has become a lightning rod for criticism of the oilsands and Alberta’s environmental record.
The U.S. administration is expected to make a decision on the pipeline later this year.
During Redford’s speech and a question-and-answer session that followed, at least six protesters in the crowd of more than 150 people were asked to leave or forcibly removed.
One protester in a yellow baseball cap, who stood out in a room full of suits and casually dressed political interns, cried, “I’m not hurting anybody,” after he was tackled by several security staff when he ran toward the stage.
Redford appeared undaunted by the protesters and even engaged one in debate. When one stood and said global warming will cause flooding, droughts and famines, the premier interjected: “That’s why we’re doing something about it.”
She later told reporters that the protesters had valid questions and deserved answers.
“Alberta has a strong record to defend, a very persuasive case to make and an undeniable need to make it,” she added. “The facts need to be on the table during the debate over Keystone.”
While Redford maintained Alberta has “nothing to hide, because the facts are on our side,” she was accused by opposition MLAs and environmentalists of also playing fast and loose with the truth.
Danielle Droitsch, Canadian project director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Alberta has a huge credibility problem when it comes to demonstrating sound environmental policy.
“We’ve seen numerous times where Alberta said it will have strong environmental policy, but when the details unfold … it’s weak and ineffective and unenforceable,” she said.
In Edmonton, NDP Leader Brian Mason said the Progressive Conservative premier is boasting about environmental initiatives that have not been successful.
“They haven’t followed through on any of the things they’ve talked about in terms of the environment, and I don’t believe they have any intention of ever doing so. I think it’s all hot air for the Americans’ benefit.”
The push for tougher greenhouse-gas rules in Canada and plans for a new crude pipeline to Atlantic Canada may help make the case for the Keystone XL pipeline, says a Washington-based energy consultant.
In a research note, Robert Johnston of the Eurasia Group, said he expects approval of the northern leg of the Keystone XL between Alberta and Nebraska by late summer, despite the recent spill of Alberta heavy crude in Arkansas, which has been highlighted by critics of the proposed Keystone line.
Johnston said the bitumen spill on the ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline “created significant headline risk and could generate further delays” for U.S. federal approval. But this is balanced by recent proposals for stricter greenhousegas emission rules in Canada which are being pushed by the Alberta government, and further progress on TransCanada’s proposed “Energy East” pipeline which will deliver oilsands output to Atlantic Canada.
Johnston noted the Arkansas spill “has driven a strong response by the environmental community in Washington, which is virtually united in opposing Keystone XL.” He adds the spill “is being used to re-engage the administration following public comments by President (Barack) Obama in San Francisco last week that were interpreted as more favourable for Keystone XL approval.”
Johnston notes the Keystone will have a number of new “smart” systems to detect and respond to leaks, and will be built with better materials than those used in the 60-year-old Pegasus pipeline.
And the push for an eastern outlet, with TransCanada’s plans to convert one of its underused natural gas pipelines to carry crude and extend the line from Montreal to Saint John, N.B., with its large Irving refinery, has shown there is another option to Keystone XL.
That, in combination with Enbridge’s plans to reverse its existing line to Montreal so western light crude can reach the Suncor refinery there, will weaken the environmentalists’ argument that stopping Keystone will halt oilsands development.
“The Keystone XL alternatives are crucial as they underpin the argument that the GHG (greenhouse gas) impact of KXL itself will be neutral, as the oilsands will be produced and brought to market with or without the KXL project,” Johnston said.
However, using rail or the TransCanada line to the east are still not the best choices for many producers, since those options will be more expensive than using the Keystone line.
Eurasia notes the 45-day comment period on the draft of the U.S. environmental impact statement is set to expire on April 22 unless it is extended. If it expires, it will take an additional one to two months to prepare the final statement, which would then have to undergo an inter-agency review of up to 90 days.
“Sources contacted by Eurasia Group are divided over whether the White House would use most or all of that time.
“On balance, while approval remains highly likely, timing now looks more likely to be late summer versus late spring,” said the report.