Keystone XL By Any Other Name Will Be Just As Crudely Sour
The Big Oil powers that be have a Keystone XL obsession that just won’t die. Opponents are just as adamant that it won’t be built.
Here we go again.
The Big Oil powers that be have a Keystone XL obsession that just won’t die. Opponents are just as adamant that it won’t be built. The latest industry brainstorm is to bring a whole bunch of dirty tar sands oil from Canada to Guernsey, Wyoming, and then… well, “some future company” would need to build an additional pipeline, in order to get that oil down to refineries on the Gulf Coast. That’s a risky plan for a pipeline investor.
To review: The pipeline company TransCanada, which later became TC Energy and then recently spun off into new corporate entity “South Bow,” first proposed building the Alberta to Texas tar sands pipeline in 2008. As a trans-boundary pipeline, it required not only state permits and land acquisition from farmers and ranchers along the route, but also a Presidential Permit determining it to be in the national interest.
It was sailing along its permitting process despite opposition from First Nations in Canada, when climate scientist James Hansen pointed out that if the super-dirty high-carbon Alberta tar sands were fully developed it would be “game over” for the climate. At the same time, farmers and ranchers in Nebraska noticed that the route went through the fragile Sand Hills region and threatened the Ogallala aquifer. A battle royale ensued, with an unlikely alliance of farmers and ranchers, students, tribal nations, grassroots climate activists, and environmental nonprofits joining together against KXL supporters, which included the Alberta government, the Canadian government, the Republican Party, about half of the Democratic Party, and the entire oil industry.
To call this plan half-baked would be an insult to baking.
Remarkably, the unlikely alliance won. Barack Obama denied the Presidential Permit in 2015. Donald Trump approved it on the first day of his first term, but litigation prevented it from moving forward for the next four years. Joe Biden re-cancelled it on the first day of his presidency, and KXL was not built.
Now, however, there is an inkling of a plan to sort of revive KXL, although “plan” is an exaggeration. A company called Bridger is testing the waters by proposing to take bitumen, the technical term for the thick gooey hydrocarbon also known as tar sands or oil sands, from Alberta and pipe it through Montana to Guernsey, Wyoming. From there, according to press reports, “spurs” would be “bolted on” to take it to refining hubs and to the Gulf Coast for export. But it’s over 700 miles from Guernsey to the hub in Cushing, Olahoma, and over 400 miles to Steele City, Nebraska, where it could connect to existing underutilized pipelines.
Four hundred (400) miles is not exactly a “spur” that you “bolt on.” In fact, that route would require a state permit from the Nebraska Public Service Commission, and the acquisition of land—through eminent domain if necessary—from hundreds of Nebraskans. The process would take years, and generate the same controversy it did back in the early 2010’s. And if South Bow fails to get the full route built before the militantly pro-oil US president is out of office, the cross-border Presidential Permit could be denied—again. That “spur,” potentially cutting across the entire state of Nebraska, is the part that “some future company” would be responsible for. To call this plan half-baked would be an insult to baking.
The current war in Iran is making oil and energy markets more volatile than anytime since the 1970’s, with oil prices over $100. That might make it seem that tar sands oil, which is not only the dirtiest but most expensive oil to produce, could still make money. But in the long run, oil will probably settle somewhere under $100, because that’s where Saudi Arabia, OPEC, and the US producers want it—high enough to generate high profits, but not high enough to provoke recession. And in the even longer run, the world will inevitably electrify transportation, because this dependence on oil, with its wars and spills and price spikes and insecurity and pollution and global warming, is just too crazy.
Let’s add up the risks:
- The US is producing more oil than ever, and doesn’t need dirty Canadian tar sands oil.
- ”The future company” and the second half of the project connecting down to the Gulf may never materialize, making this a pipeline to nowhere.
- If the Venezuelan oil sector is revived, it will have easier access to the Texas refineries and export facilities than Alberta tar sands oil.
- The price of oil in the long run is only marginally high enough for tar sands oil to be profitable.
- The opposition to taking of land by eminent domain will be intense, especially for a project that will export oil.
- A pipeline like this will cost billions of dollars.
- A pipeline like this will spill and contaminate land and water along the route.
- Climate change is still real, even if the US government denies it.
- The US president will not grant a permit with nothing in return; he will want a piece of the action.
Let’s add up the rewards:
- A few thousand short term construction jobs.
- A few dozen permanent jobs.
- Tax revenue for counties along the route.
The risks far outweigh the rewards. Which is why this pipeline should not be built.
The US Bureau of Land Management and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality are now jointly accepting public comments on permit applications for the project through May 1, and holding several public meetings in Montana.
Bold Nebraska, the group that helped lead the original fight against Keystone XL by organizing farmers and ranchers along the route into an unlikely alliance with Tribal Nations, grassroots advocates, and national environmental groups, is collecting comments from citizens for the docket that it will deliver by mail on the May 1 deadline. Click here to use Bold’s form to submit a public comment to oppose the new “Keystone Light” pipeline project.
