Keystone XL foes target rail terminal plans
Environmentalists also pushing expensive retrofits of tanker cars
WASHINGTON — Environmentalists opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline are expanding their fight against imports of Canadian heavy crude oil by trying to block rail projects that offer another way for it to enter the U.S.
“Debating rail or pipelines is like debating which kind of poison you want,” Daniel Kessler, a spokesman for 350.org, an environmental group, said in an interview. “There is a substantive effort underway in many places to block rail.”
350.org is among the environmental groups that oppose Keystone because they say it would promote development of oilsands crude, which involves the release of more greenhouse gases in its production and refining than other forms of oil. Canada, the biggest foreign supplier of oil to the U.S., has lobbied hard for the pipeline to promote growth of its energy industry.
The use of trains to carry crude is increasing in both the U.S. and Canada as production outstrips the capacity of pipelines to transport the bounty. In Canada, producers are rushing to secure rail cars while U.S. President Barack Obama reviews Keystone, a $5.4-billion-US pipeline TransCanada Corp. wants to build to link the oilsands in Alberta with refineries on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
Companies that would benefit from shipping the Alberta oil by rail include Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., a unit of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Oilsands opponents are targeting rail-terminal projects in California, Washington state and elsewhere and pushing federal regulators to mandate expensive retrofits to tanker cars that could impede efforts by producers to expand their fleets. The campaign represents a threat to Canadian oil, which together with natural gas is Canada’s largest export to the U.S.
Oilsands critics are already having some success. The Shorelines Hearings Board, which oversees construction along Washington state’s coast, last week blocked permits for two crude-terminal projects at Grays Harbor and called for additional study of the environmental risks of increasing ship and train traffic.
Kristen Boyles, a spokeswoman for Earthjustice, said one concern voiced by critics was that the terminals would receive oilsands products, which can be harder to clean up in a spill than conventional crude.
Valero Energy Corp.’s plan to build a terminal at its Benicia, Calif., refinery to off-load crude has been delayed as city officials seek an environmental review.
While the company isn’t saying what type of crude would move through the terminal, groups such as 350.org and the Natural Resources Defense Council say it will probably include some from the oilsands.
Bill Day, a spokesman for San Antonio-based Valero, said the project would make the refinery more competitive by giving it access to cheaper fuel. Its two California refineries lost $78 million in the last quarter, the weakest performers among the company’s 13 plants in the U.S., he said.
Day sa id the project wouldn’t increase emissions, as some critics have claimed.