TransCanada says it will reapply to build Keystone XL pipeline

TransCanada has issued a statement saying that it will apply to the United States government to build the Keystone XL pipeline from the Alberta bitumen sands to Texas.

Related: Obama adminstration rejects Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada can reapply

The statement reads, in part:

This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

TransCanada expects that consideration of a renewed application will make use of the exhaustive record compiled over the past three plus years.

“Until this pipeline is constructed, the U.S. will continue to import millions of barrels of conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and other foreign countries who do not share democratic values Canadians and Americans are privileged to have,” added Girling. “Thousands of jobs continue to hang in the balance if this project does not go forward. This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed.”

TransCanada will continue to work collaboratively with Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality on determining the safest route for Keystone XL that avoids the Sandhills. This process is expected to be complete in September or October of this year.

TransCanada has committed to a project labour agreement with the Laborers International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Pipeline Contractors Association. Any delay in approval of construction prevents this work from going to thousands of hard-working trades people.

TransCanada’s investment of billions of private dollars would create thousands more jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The company has contracts with over 50 suppliers across the U.S.. Manufacturing locations for Keystone XL equipment include: Texas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, Kansas, California and Pennsylvania. The benefits these companies and the people of their states continue to be delayed and the negative impacts will be felt.

Girling adds TransCanada continues to believe in Keystone XL due to the overwhelming support the project has received from American and Canadian producers and U.S. refiners who signed 17 to 18 year contracts to ship over 600,000 barrels of oil per day to meet the needs of American consumers.

Links January 12, 2012

Editorial: Just asking: why didn’t anyone object to the Americans at the NEB LNG hearings in Kitimat?

The Joint Review Panel hearings on the Northern Gateway pipeline are less than 48 hours from now. The media are packing their bags and coming to Kitimat (or perhaps Terrace since this town is booked solid).

The propaganda war, and it can only be called a propaganda war, is in full force, driven mostly by right wing columnist Ezra Levant and his Ethical Oil organization, objecting to “foreign intervenors in the pipeline hearings at another site OurDecision.ca

This now seems to have widespread support, in a Twitter debate last night, many even moderate conservatives and even moderate Albertans were saying there is too much foreign influence in the JRP hearings.

I have one question for these people. Where were you in June? On a beach?

It was in June that the National Energy Board held hearings on the first of the three proposed Liquified Natural Gas projects in Kitimat. No media hordes descended on Kitimat. At those hearings only local reporters showed up and I was the only one that stuck through the entire proceedings. (The NEB did approve the export application)

So when the media quote Levant and his spokesperson Kathryn Marshall, the widespread stories about this malevolent foreign influence are inaccurate because they weren’t in Kitimat in June so they didn’t hear all those deep Texas drawls in the hearing room at the Riverlodge Recreation Centre.

Although a lot of good reporters are coming into town this week, they’ll all be gone by Thursday morning when the JRP hearings move on to Terrace.

So in today’s Sun Media papers Levant says:

Who should decide whether Canada should build an oil pipeline to our west coast — Canadian citizens or foreign interests?
That’s what the fight over the Northern Gateway pipeline is about. Sure, it’s also about $20 billion a year for the Canadian economy and thousands of jobs. It’s about opening up export markets in Asia. It’s about enough new tax dollars to pay for countless hospitals and schools.
But it’s really about Canadian sovereignty. Do we get to make our own national decisions, or will we let foreign interests interfere?
The answer should be obvious to any self-respecting Canadian: This is a Canadian matter, and Canadians should decide it.

Why weren’t Levant and the rest of the blue-eyed sheikh crowd (OK they don’t all have blue yes but you know what I mean) across the Rockies here in June objecting to those Americans interfering in Canadian affairs with their plans to export liquefied natural gas to Asia?

Who is behind the Kitimat LNG project? Well, the KMLNG partners are Houston, Texas based Apache Corporation, Houston, Texas based EOG Resources and Encana, a company that originated in Canada but now has extensive operations in the United States and around the world.

The second LNG project, which is now before the National Energy Board, is BC LNG, a partnership between a Houston, Texas-based energy company and the Haisla First Nation here in Kitimat.

The third LNG project is coming from energy giant Royal Dutch Shell.

When are we going to see Ethical Oil and all those conservative columnists objecting to American participation when the NEB holds hearings on the second and third LNG projects?

This goes all the way to the centre of power. Stephen Harper objects to the Northern Gateway hearings being “hijacked by foreign money.” I notice the Prime Minister didn’t object to the hearings in June with American companies Apache and EOG investing in a natural gas pipeline. Cabinet ministers Joe Oliver and Peter Kent are also concerned about foreign influence on pipeline projects. That is they are only worried about possible foreign influence when it comes to the environment. Foreign influences that are building natural gas pipelines and LNG terminal facilities are perfectly fine, thank you.

Blaming “foreign influence”, of course, is one of the oldest dirty tricks in the political playbook. In recent days Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has blamed foreign influence for the demonstrations against the rigged election in that country. In Syria, Bashir al-Assad is still blaming “foreign agitators” for the revolt against his regime. Before they were ousted, both Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Mohamar Gaddafi of Libya blamed “foreign agitators” for the Arab Spring. Go to Google News and type in “foreign influence” or “foreign agitators” and now that Google News also searches news archives, you can find stories of politicians all over the world blaming foreigners for their troubles going back to the turn of the last century.

It’s just sad to see Canada’s leading politicians and the major media joining that sorry tradition.

Note Natural Gas is not bitumen

Some in the media seems to be puzzled that most of the people in northern British Columbia are not objecting to the liquified natural gas projects. The media seem puzzled that KM LNG has been able to reach agreements with First Nations along the natural gas pipeline routes when Enbridge can’t.

(One factor is that Enbridge got off on the wrong foot with First Nations and things have generally gone downhill from there, leading people in northwest BC to question the general competence of Enbridge management.)

The answer is that natural gas is not bitumen. Natural gas is known factor. Bitumen, despite the thousands of pages of documents field by Enbridge with the JRP, is an unknown factor since there has never been a major bitumen disaster.

The worst case scenario, a catastrophic LNG ship explosion, could cause a huge forest fire. A natural gas pipeline breach under the right conditions could start a big forest fire. The environment of northwestern British Columbia has evolved to deal with fires. After such an incident, nature would take over and the forest would eventually come back. It is likely that the forest would take longer to recover than it would from a lightning strike fire, but the forest would recover. Bitumen leaking into salmon spawning rivers would kill the rivers. Bitumen stuck at the deep and rocky bottom of Douglas Channel would contaminate the region, probably for centuries.

It’s that simple.

 


Related Terrace Daily  No Apology Forthcoming by Gerald Amos

Harper concerned Joint Review hearings being “hijacked by foreign money”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters at a photo op in Edmonton on Friday, January 6, 2012, that he is concerned about the possibility that the Joint Review hearings on Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would be “hijacked” by “foreign money, to really overload the public consultation of regulatory hearings for the purpose of slowing down the process.”

Harper said what he called the slow process of the hearings “was not good” for the Canadian economy, he said. “We have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time, and processes that cannot be hijacked,” Harper said. “The government of Canada will be taking a close look at how we can ensure our regulatory processes are effective and deliver decisions in a reasonable amount of time.”

Harper added that his government would be watching the Joint Review hearings closely and added his  government may  review the public consultation procedure to make sure they are not overloaded solely for the purpose of slowing down the process.

Harper’s comments did not identify the “foreign money,” but he was clearly referring to criticism from blogger Vivian Krause, the pro-bitumen sands group Ethical Oil and right wing columnists who are crusading against Canadian environmental groups for accepting money from U.S. sources. Harper, apparently, made no mention of foreign investment in the bitumen sands and the pipeline projects.

Links January 6, 2012

West Coast Environmental Law responds to Ethical Oil’s attack ads

West Coast Enviromental Law, the first target of the attack ads by the Ethical Oil activist group has responded in a statement from Executive Director and Senior Counsel, Jessica Clogg who said: “Our campaigns are not dictated by the sources of our funding. Rather, we seek funding to support the environmental initiatives we decide on as a British Columbia organisation with deep roots in communities around the province.”

The Alberta based pro bitumen sands lobby group Ethical Oil, using figures from Vancouver blogger Vivian Krause are attacking any group opposing the bitumen sands and pipelines who may receive backing from foundations or other groups based outside of Canada.

“Our funding to support ordinary Canadians in keeping our magnificent north Pacific Coast free from the threat of oil tankers and oil spills is dwarfed by that of oil producers and refiners, which put up $100 million to promote the Northern Gateway project and push it through the regulatory review,” Clogg said.

A  statement on its website “Why West Coast is fighting Enbridge (it’s not the funding)” says in part:

Through our environmental legal aid services, citizens and community groups who could not otherwise afford it are able to participate meaningfully and democratically in decisions about resource development that have the potential to profoundly affect their lives.
Back in the ‘70s when a broad citizens’ coalition brought to a halt a proposed oil pipeline to an oil port at Kitimat, BC West Coast lawyers were there to support them. And we are there today for these northern communities as they once again face the threat of environmental devastation from oil pipelines and tankers….
Our belief remains strong today, as then, that our salmon-rich north Pacific coast and rivers should remain free from oil supertankers and the threat of oil spills….
This goal, like the other long-term strategic priorities of West Coast Environmental Law is set by our board and staff, informed by the deep connections we have forged over many decades with communities in every corner of the province. Without the generosity of our supporters, including dedicated individuals and foundations on both sides of the border, the work of our non-profit charity to protect the environment through law would not be possible. But we, not our funders, decide what issues we will focus on.

 

Ethical Oil group launches attack ads supporting Northern Gateway

The Alberta-based “Ethical Oil” group is launching a series of American-style attack ads that will appear on British Columbia radio stations and in BC newspapers in coming days warning the province against what they call “foreign influence” opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Joint Review hearings on the controversial pipelines project begins next Tuesday, January 10, at Kitamaat Village.

The main message of the attack ads goes like this:

Ethical Oil puppet graphic
A graphic on the Ethical Oil website depicts a puppet master controlling environmental groups.

Foreign billionaires are hiring front groups to swamp the hearings to block the Northern Gateway pipeline project. Anti-oil sands groups claiming to speak for Canadians are actually backed by millions of dollars from foreign interests.

A news release from the right wing group quotes Kathryn Marshall, spokesman as saying “Canadians will be shocked to learn that anti-oilsands lobby groups opposing the project have taken millions of dollars from foreign special interests.”

The release says that each ad in the series highlights a different Canadian front group being paid by a foreign special interest.

In an interview with Sun Media’ s QMI agency Marshall said “Canadian environmental non-governmental organizations “are becoming nothing more than puppets for their foreign paymasters.”

What Ethical Oil calls factual documentation for the ads, as well as an audio clip of the first of five radio ads, can be heard at the website www.OurDecision.ca.

Targets of the attack ad campaign include

  • The West Coast Environmental Law Foundation
  • Corporate Ethics International
  • Pembina Environmental Foundation
  • Environmental Defence Canada
  • Ecojustice Canada Society

The West Coast Environmental Law Foundation is the first target of the campaign. Ethicaloil.org claims the Canadian company has received $195,000 in foreign money to “fight against B.C.”

Marshall says, “This ad campaign is 100% Canadian, paid for through grassroots donations by Canadians only. We’ll never take foreign money to undermine our country’s national interests.”

There are prominent ads on both the Ethical Oil site and Our Decision asking supporters for donations.

The attacks are based on work by Vivian Krause, the Vancouver based researcher who has looked for Canadian connections in the tax returns of American environmental foundations.

Ethical Oil makes no mention of the massive foreign investment in the Canadian energy industry, including no mention of Chinese and American investment in the bitumen sands. It also fails to mention that there is major foreign investment in the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Enbridge is keeping the names of their investors confidential, with the exception of the Chinese state oil company Sinopec.

Alberta premier says Northern Gateway critical to Canadian economy

Updated below with transcript of Alison Redford’s speech.

 Bill Graveland of Canadian Press reports in  Alberta premier says Northern Gateway pipeline critical for Canadian economic development.

In an address to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, which CP says was her first major address in Calgary since becoming premier, Alison Redford said that the Northern Gateway pipeline project is of national importance and is critical to Canada’s future economic strength.

“We need to be able to talk about why the success of this pipeline becomes critical to our economic success in the next two years. But we are going to have to separate the wheat from the chaff because we know there are going to be a number of interveners who have very particular political agendas,” said Redford in a question and answer session following a lunch-hour address to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

Redford was referring to the large number of people who have registered either as intervenors or to give comments at the Joint Review hearings. She added:

The agenda that I think matters to most Canadians is the agenda for economic growth at a time when the rest of the world is in very uncertain circumstances and we just don’t have to be.”

CP says Redford called on other Canadians to lobby on behalf of the Keystone and Northern Gateway pipelines.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate or even necessary for only Alberta or only Alberta interests to be out lobbying with respect to this pipeline. We’re trying to ensure it succeeds. This is an issue that takes on national importance and my expectation with people in Ottawa including the prime minister is they understand that,” she said.

Update one

A few hours later, columnist Don Braid writing in the Calgary Herald in It’s sinking in that Redford is different notes how the powerful of the Alberta oil patch were eager to hear the premier’s speech, as compared to former premier Ed Stelmach.

Braid notes that:

It’s just beginning to sink in that Redford is radical in the Alberta context, a national diplomat of an entirely new order.

She does not say, like the old Reform party, that the West Wants In. She assumes that Alberta already is in, and offers to lead without the resentment born of grievances from the old National Energy Program to current attacks on the oilsands.

Although Braid’s column goes over Alberta’s old grievances with the federal government, and how perhaps the premier is diplomatically working to overcome them,  he closes with an ominous threat to British Columbia:

Redford might someday have to show a brass knuckle inside her velvet glove.

She might even suggest, along with former minister Lloyd Snelgrove, that B.C. has a lot of nerve rejecting Alberta oil, when B.C.’s natural gas is routinely shipped through Alberta pipelines to the United States.

Snelgrove isn’t recommending a ban, oh no, but he says: “Maybe people need to think about that when they say they won’t take our oil.”

Maybe they do; or maybe Alison Redford’s olive branch will bring peace and prosperity to the land.

There is widespread support for the LNG projects in Kitimat and across the northwest and the KM LNG partners project has much better relations with First Nations than Enbridge.

However, last week’s blockade by members of Wet’suwet’en First Nation clans of a Pacific Trails Pipeline survey crew at Gosnell River, over fears that the PTP project could open the gates, so to speak, for the Northern Gateway pipeline, means that nothing is certain.

Perhaps Don Braid and Lloyd Snelgrove should be careful what they wish for.


Update 2 Transcript of Premier Redford’s speech.

Premier Redford does not mention Northern Gateway in the actual speech ( the news reports are from a question and answer session).

She does say, however:

“The world will need fossil fuels for a long time to come. The oil sands, as one of the few energy-rich areas outside the unstable Middle East poised for growth, will be essential, as the International Energy Agency publicly recognized this month. The second is that there is no Canadian Energy Strategy without our partners.
The infrastructure we need to get our oil and gas to market must cross other provinces’ lands. And the federal and provincial regulations that will inevitably shape how Canada’s environment is protected, how our energy is extracted and how it is transported will require input from everybody to have the greatest net positive effect.

We must rise together. There is no other way.

Alberta’s success depends on partnership with the province.”

Thank you for that introduction, Nancy (Southern). Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, it is a pleasure to be here with you. Thanks to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce for asking me to be here today.

I am pleased to have the chance to speak to you today about the province’s economy and our place in uncertain times.

The global population is growing, and its needs and wants are expanding too. We have 7 billion people on this planet, and many of them aspire to a higher standard of living.

And those who already enjoy it want to do so more responsibly. They want to mitigate the impact of their consumption, and they expect producers to respond.

The world needs food and energy, in greater quantities with fewer consequences for the environment.

Alberta is uniquely placed to meet this demand and excel, despite the short-term negative impact of our neighbours’ woes on our finances.

We can become preferred suppliers on a global scale.

The mechanisms we need to achieve this are already in place.

Our agricultural sector maintains a sterling reputation. And our energy industry is at the leading edge in production, innovation, technology and compliance, all areas this government is working to improve even further.

In both areas, we have a skilled workforce capable of expanding production in an environmentally and socially responsible, and economically sustainably manner. Our resources are therefore not just profitable, but strategic.

Simply put, Alberta is opportunity. And so long as we begin laying the foundations now to establish this province as an international hub for commodities and expertise, this will remain true for a long time come.

But we can’t forget why we are doing this.

Our search for new markets can never overshadow our highest priority: improving the quality of life for all Albertans.

It is our responsibility to ensure that every Albertan shares in the benefits our capabilities afford us.

The wider we spread prosperity, the more we gain.

You understand this as well as I do, which is why I have been saying “we” all along.

Quality of life is not purely a matter for government. In a place as independent-minded as Alberta, the private sector plays a major role.

Many of the individuals in this room have achievements that go far beyond the professional sphere. You sit on the boards of non-profits, generously provide them with financial support and tap your personal networks to find still more.

You devote a significant part of your lives to giving back, strengthening the bonds that hold Calgary together by reaching out to the less fortunate in love and compassion, in the hope of making a positive change in their lives. You make a difference in this city every single day.

Government must support your efforts by making things easier for you, so you can do the same for others, and complement the public sector’s work.

There is one way to go about this: growing Alberta’s economy.

Expanding industry, investing in innovation and tuning our tax structures to support business ? these are the methods we use to fund our public services and deliver community supports.

These are also the tools we need to build Alberta’s wealth and create opportunities, for philanthropy, for personal fulfillment and for nurturing the community relationships that make Calgary a city worth living in.

Despite the tenuous world economy, we can still protect and preserve these aspirations.

Alberta has incredible natural advantages that allow us to accomplish things that no other province can hope to achieve. We can use them to build even as others struggle to stay afloat and that’s exactly what this government will do.

We have the ability and the will to sow the seeds of a brighter future, the one Albertans have told us they want.

During our recent public roundtables on the budget, Albertans overwhelmingly indicated that health and education remain their highest priorities.

They expect high-quality public services, a comfortable standard of living and fiscal responsibility, without deep cuts.

We can deliver, without soaring expenditures and long-term debt.

Alberta has the distinction of being the most economically free jurisdiction in North America.

We have low unemployment, strong job growth and a reliable economic engine, positioning us to lead Canada.

Our tax regime is one of the most competitive in the developed world.

Even as other economies flounder, we are attracting investment and skilled workers.

Our small businesses are second to none, accounting for almost a third of provincial GDP and over three-quarters of all enterprises with employees.

And our large businesses continue to thrive and invest in innovation.

Of course, not everything is coming up roses. We have a tough budget ahead of us.

The costs of core services like health care and education continue to grow.

And our largest trading partners are weighed down with unsustainable debt loads, anaemic growth and high unemployment. Alberta can’t help being affected to some degree.

In the current fiscal year, provincial revenues will be $1.2 billion more than predicted, thanks mostly to increased land lease sales. However, our forecasted deficit will be $3.1 billion, $1.8 billion higher than first quarter projections.

This is largely due to international factors beyond our control. The US, our main customer, remains weak. American debt now exceeds $15 trillion and cross-party efforts to find mutually acceptable spending cuts have led only to more acrimony. Unemployment remains stubbornly high and growth stubbornly low, while a solution seems farther away than ever.

I was in Washington last week and let me tell you, the despair was palpable.

Europe’s troubles add to the mix. Despite the international bailout package the European Union has put together, there is still a strong expectation that Greece will default on its debts. Other EU members such as Italy and Portugal are struggling to avoid the same situation.

And from a provincial perspective, government has seen increased outlays due to disaster relief, especially from the wildfires around Slave Lake, and our renewed commitment to primary education.

We are not living in the best of times, but neither are we mired in the worst. And however grim are partners’ economic struggles, they do not define our destiny.

The Alberta Advantage will ensure we stay in an enviable position of strength.

We will make the most of the province’s unique characteristics to deliver what Albertans want.

We will keep taxes low while maintaining strong public service and a wealth of opportunity.

Our plans for stable, multi-year budgets for these services will bring unprecedented discipline to public spending. Other governments have talked about doing it. We will make it happen.

Hard decisions on the part of past governments have allowed Alberta to eliminate its long-term debt and build up a savings account, the Sustainability Fund, to see us through rough patches.

We will conduct regular budgetary reviews to search for savings wherever we can, managing our finances to protect future Albertans from debt.

And we remain committed to balancing the budget by 2013-14, without the sharp cuts Albertans fear.

This government will never lose sight of Albertans’ needs, or back away from providing supports to our most vulnerable, and services for all, no matter what the outside world throws our way.

We will keep working for Alberta families.

Their hopes and dreams demand no less.

I know this government can surpass them.

Even if the fog of another recession descends, we have a clear path back.

Diversifying our customer base to focus on hungry developing nations is the key to our long-term success.

We must pursue opportunity wherever we find it, searching for new partners in new markets and promoting Alberta on the global stage.

Even as the western world falters, other economies are thriving.

Asia’s star is rising and Asian nations are poised to dominate the 21st century. Best of all, they are eager for our resources and our know-how, particularly in energy.

We can deliver, in a safe, secure and environmentally friendly fashion. But we can’t go it alone.

The rest of the provinces can join our efforts and escape the trap of low growth and high debt, into which so many others have fallen.

Canada is an energy-rich nation, blessed with an incredibly array of resources, from the oil sands to hydro, natural gas, nuclear and renewables.

No single source is better than any other or can stand on its own.

Innovation is the key to developing our capacity to produce them all at competitive rates. Collaboration is the key to developing the infrastructure necessary to get our energy to market. The more the provinces work together to harness and transport their respective resources, the greater our shared prosperity will be. We need a Canadian Energy Strategy.

The provinces must begin a dialogue to develop shared outcomes that their energy systems can serve. Collectively, they should use energy to foster national economic growth and competitiveness, seeking out new markets.

Canadians all face similar challenges notwithstanding the different forms of energy under development such as international market uncertainty, fiscal issues, public opinion, environmental protection and regulatory concerns.

Untangling the web of self-interest that divides this great nation will not be easy, but if the provinces are willing to work together, they can transform Canada into a global energy leader, drawing sustainably on multiple sources in a way that benefits the world and our citizens, without compromising anyone’s quality of life. We can become models for countries dealing with similar issues.

It is time to leave old antagonisms behind.

The oil sands have come in for particularly sharp criticism from the rest of Canada. We must be willing to forgive and forget, to work together for our mutual benefit.

We must ally with the other provinces to attain the greatest possible prosperity, but we can’t dictate terms. This must be a genuinely cooperative endeavour, from which everybody gains.

At the end of the day, we must recall two things:

One is that there is no Canadian Energy Strategy without us.

The world will need fossil fuels for a long time to come. The oil sands, as one of the few energy-rich areas outside the unstable Middle East poised for growth, will be essential, as the International Energy Agency publicly recognized this month.

The second is that there is no Canadian Energy Strategy without our partners.

The infrastructure we need to get our oil and gas to market must cross other provinces’ lands. And the federal and provincial regulations that will inevitably shape how Canada’s environment is protected, how our energy is extracted and how it is transported will require input from everybody to have the greatest net positive effect.

We must rise together. There is no other way.

Alberta’s success depends on partnership with the provinces.

And the health of each and every province is inextricably linked to the strength of the global economy.

On every level, we are stronger together than apart, because far more unites us than separates us.

Although Canada can’t entirely escape the downward pull of its long-suffering trading partners, this doesn’t mean the rest of the country is doomed to suffer, any more than Alberta is.

We have a way out, and it’s time we used it. It’s time to stand up and show others how Alberta and Canada can lead globally on all fronts, from the economy to the environment to energy.

Our shared future Canada’s future is worth infinitely more than our quarrels. Together, we can shine.

To ensure Canadians’ prosperity, the provinces must translate this realization into action. I pledge to you: Alberta’s government will.

Thank you.

Little difference between diluted bitumen and conventional crude affect on pipelines, Alberta review says

Energy Environment

    A study by an Alberta provincial government agency has concluded that diluted bitumen (also known in the industry as “dilbit”) is little different in its effects on pipelines than conventional or ‘non-oil sands derived’ crude oil.

A review of existing studies was conducted by Jenny Been, P.Eng for the provincial agency,  Alberta  Innovates – Technology Futures.  A news release on the website describes Been as a “corrosion specialist.”  The study “concludes that the characteristics of dilbit are not unique and are comparable to conventional crude oils during pipeline flow.”

Link News release and study (pdf) 
Comparison of the Corrosivity of Dilbit and Conventional Crude

Been’s study takes on the contention that dilbit has higher acid, sulfur, and chloride salts and higher concentrations of abrasive solids than conventional crude.  As well, the study looks at the belief that dilbit transmission pipelines operate at higher operating temperatures compared with crude, which would make the dilbit more corrosive. Environmentalists and other critics say  this leads to  a higher failure rate than pipelines carrying  crude.

The study compared the  properties  of  heavy,  medium,  and  light  conventional Alberta crude oils with three dilbit and one dilsynbit (a mixture of conventional gas diluent and synthetic gas) crude.

The review  concludes “that the characteristics of dilbit are not unique and are comparable to conventional crude oils.”

While two of the four dilbit crudes displayed a slightly higher naphthenic acid and sulfur concentration than the conventional Alberta heavy crudes, the review notes that there are conventional crudes on the market that have displayed higher values.  It says while there have been corrosion problems at refineries where the temperature can exceed  200 C, it says “the  much  lower  pipeline transportation temperatures, the compounds are too stable to be corrosive and some may even decrease the corrosion rate.”

The study also says “sediment  levels  of  the  dilbit  crudes  were  comparable  to  or  lower  than  the conventional crudes, except for a dilsynbit crude, which showed more than double the quantity of solids than most other crudes, but was still well below the limit set by regulatory agencies and industry….Erosion corrosion was found to be improbable and erosion, if present, is expected to be gradual and observed by regular mitigation practices.”

The study’s recommendations note that it is a review and “It has to be understood that this was a high-level review and a focused, peer-reviewed study has not been conducted.   The scope of the work did not include interviews with industry, regulators, or colleagues.”

It calls for the industry to create a database that would further study that differences between dilbit oils and conventional crude oils,  including further study of sludge formation and deposition in the pipeline and the links, if any,  “on sludge chemistry to pipeline sludge formation and sludge   corrosivity,   including   the   ability   of   the   sludge   to   support   microbial populations.”

Been says in the study that Enbridge supports an industry working group on pipeline corrosion management  that is  “addressing these issues by correlating sludge corrosivity with a chemical and microbial geochemical characterization of the sludge.   The work is further considering and optimizing monitoring technologies to enable measurement of the effectiveness of mitigation treatments.  It is recommended that this effort will continue to be supported.”
   
While the study is a review of existing knowledge on diluted bitumen and conventional oil in pipelines,  Been’s introductory remarks clearly show a bias in favour of the bitumen sands, saying, before the Keystone XL project approval was delayed by the U.S. State Department, “TransCanada Pipeline’s (TCPL’s) $13 billion Keystone pipeline system will provide a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil to the largest refining markets in the Unites States.”

Been also notes

Environmental  groups  opposed  to  the  pipelines  continue  to  find  material  to  fuel  their concerns: the more than 800,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan last year came from the Cold Lake oil sands region, and the Exxon Mobil spill of 42,000 barrels of oil in the Yellowstone River may have contained dilbit.   Protestors against the Keystone pipeline are gathering in demonstrations across North America leading to mass arrests and drawing widespread attention.

The arguments of these environmental groups don’t go unheard with congressmen and other government officials, who have iterated reported statements and concerns.  The United States Department of States (DOS) has spent the last three years in review with the industry, scientific community, and other interest parties (including numerous public meetings), evaluating the purpose and need for the Project (pipeline), alternatives, and the associated potential environmental impacts.   The result was issued on August 26, 2011 in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), a comprehensive, detailed volume of work that is available to the public. Public hearings were held and online comments were accepted.

Been notes that as part of the Keystone assessment, the US  Department of Transportation’s  Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued 57
Project-specific Special Conditions above and beyond the requirements of the United States pipeline code for  Keystone XL. Been says TransCanada agreed to the incorporation of the 57 conditions and said would result in a pipeline with a greater degree of safety than typical domestic pipelines.

Environmental groups said the 57 conditions on Keystone were not sufficient, Been noted and the report goes on to say:

Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert considers it a challenge of combating emotion with facts, and assures that the facts could be obtained without too much difficulty.  Concerns continue to surface in the media and in the face of few factual studies and a strong confidence in …  tracking statistics that dilbit is not more corrosive than conventional oil, corrosivity claims continue to be used as fuel by certain environmental groups. 

Yet if Enbridge and other energy companies are still working on pipeline corrosion, as Been notes, then there are still problems to be solved.

Given the pro-Keystone statements in the Been’s paper, it is clear that a definitive, independent study is needed on the effects of  diluted bitumen in a pipeline, one that doesn’t come from either a pro-energy industry point of view, nor one conducted by an environmental group that would bring criticism from the energy industry.

Until there is such an independent study, the doubts of the environmental activists must be balanced with assurances coming from the energy industry.

 

Keystone XL decision – more questions than answers: Blog

A blog by Edmonton based, University of Alberta business professor Andrew Leach, Keystone XL decision – more questions than answers, analyzes the Keystone postponement through the rose coloured glasses we see often from Alberta (referring, of course, to the provincial flower, not the political party) and is more intelligent than what we’ve seen from the business press across Canada.

Interestingly Leach says:

It took exactly 3 minutes after I first heard the news for me to hear
someone say, “if they don’t want our oil, we’ll send it to China!”
Surprisingly, it took another 3 hours for me to hear someone make
reference to letting Americans freeze in the dark

And later, Leach goes on to advise Albertans:

If Alberta wants to grow oilsands production beyond about 3 million barrels per day, we are going to need others to accept infrastructure in their backyards to get it to market. In the past, landowners along 1000s of miles of pipeline would have no easy way to come together and oppose the project – that has all changed and if you don’t believe me, ask the 4000 people who have signed up to intervene at the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel hearings, or the 10000+ people who converged on the White House to oppose Keystone XL.

Editor’s Note: Leach was part of a wide ranging Twitter debate after the Keystone XL was postponed. A key article that sparked the debate was a piece in the New York Times by Michael Levi, that talked about NIMBYism in the Keystone case, A Shortsighted Victory in Delaying the Keystone Pipeline.  That three minute record seems typical of the attitude on Twitter from many Albertans, who assume that the Northern Gateway pipeline  will go ahead.