Tag Archives: Energy

HUGE: Keystone XL Delayed

Posted on by
Reply

In an important (and honestly surprising) victory for the grassroots, President Obama has delayed a decision on the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.

From Tar Sands Action:

…the president sent the pipeline back to the State Department for a thorough re-review, which most analysts are saying will effectively kill the project. The president explicitly noted climate change, along with the pipeline route, as one of the factors that a new review would need to assess….

And he has made clear that the environmental assessment won’t be carried out by cronies of the pipeline company–that it will be an expert and independent assessment.

Note that Obama didn’t reject the pipeline outright, as activists have been demanding. Instead, he effectively put off the decision until after the elections, thus avoiding a political conundrum. While we didn’t get a strong statement against the Keystone XL, we did get a vindication of the anti-KXL movement.

Six months ago, almost no one outside the pipeline route even knew about Keystone. One month ago, a secret poll of “energy insiders” by the National Journal found that “virtually all” expected easy approval of the pipeline by year’s end. As late as last week the CBC reported that TransCanada was moving huge quantities of pipe across the border and seizing land by eminent domain, certain that its permit would be granted.

And here is a statement from the White House, via the HuffPost:

“Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment, and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood,” Obama said. “The final decision should be guided by an open, transparent process that is informed by the best available science and the voices of the American people.”

This all seems obvious to those of us who were aware of–and even helped expose–the depth of corruption in the review process. But make no mistake: Without the groundswell of opposition, Obama and the State Department would have quietly signed off on the project.

Now, the pipeline is delayed, perhaps permanently. Even if it resurfaces in 2013, we will have fresh verbal ammunition in the form of a (supposedly) independent impact study, as well as ample time to strengthen and reorganize our movement.

The Keystone XL victory–go ahead and call it that–is proof of the power that a collective political effort has. We can make a dramatic difference when we channel our convictions into sustained, nonviolent action.

And we’ll need plenty more of that in the days ahead. We can expect oil apologists and their allies in Washington to continue distorting the facts about Keystone XL jobs and energy independence. The difference: Now we have to confidence to stand up and keep moving forward.

Keystone XL Jobs Figures are Rife With Misleading Math and Conflicts of Interest

Posted on by
3

Activists protest Keystone XL pipeline at White House

Industry and government estimates of Keystone XL jobs are unreliable, according to independent study.

Have you heard that the Keystone XL pipeline would create 20,000 jobs? If so, you might have read it in a news article and assumed that it came from trustworthy, independent research. But the truth is a bit more complicated.

I’ve already mentioned that TransCanada’s job figures are inflated–but now we have even more evidence. The media has cooperatively echoed TransCanada’s estimates: 13,000 direct construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs. But the TransCanada chief executive himself, Russ Girling, admitted to the Washington Post that the first number was misleading:

Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was “one person, one year,” meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500. That brings the company’s number closer to the State Department’s; State says the project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs, a figure that was calculated by its contractor Cardno Entrix.

Cardno Entrix also handled the Keystone XL environmental review. Why is this important? Because Cardno Entrix lists TransCanada as a “major client.” It turns out that TransCanada handpicked the firm for the State Department. Then, by pure coincidence, the “State” research sounded just like an advertisement for the pipeline: thousands of Keystone XL jobs and “limited adverse environmental impacts.” (See the NYT story for details.)

Made in Canada

Now what about the 7,000 manufacturing jobs? To answer, that, we’ll return to the WashPo article:

As for the 7,000 indirect supply chain jobs, the $1.9 billion already spent by TransCanada would reduce the number of jobs that would be created in the future. The Brixton Group, a firm working with opponents of the project, has argued that many of the indirect supply jobs would be outside the United States because about $1.7 billion worth of steel will be purchased from a Russian-owned mill in Canada.

TransCanada, of course, insists that most of the pipeline would be made in Arkansas. On the other hand, DeSmogBlog notes,

TransCanada has already signed contracts for nearly 50 percent of the steel pipe for the project. A Russian company, Evraz, will manufacture roughly 40 percent in Canadian mills, and an Indian company, Welspun, is likely to produce the rest.

An independent analysis

You might be wondering if there are any Keystone XL jobs reports not funded by TransCanada. As a matter of fact, Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute has just what you’re looking for. Here are some key points from the study:

  • The construction of KXL will create far fewer jobs in the US than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates. 
  • The industry’s US job claims, and even the State Department’s analysis, are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion.
  • The claim that KXL will create 7,000 manufacturing jobs in the US is unsubstantiated. There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the US
  • The industry’s job projections fail to consider the large number of jobs that could be lost by construction of KXL. This includes jobs lost due to consumers in the Midwest paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs ($2 to $4 billion) will suppress other spending and cost jobs.
If you also consider that the Keystone XL would do almost nothing to decrease oil imports from the Middle East (see here and here), you can build a solid case for rejecting the project without even mentioning environmental impacts. Add tar sands, a dash of spilled oil in a water supply, and an extra large helping of climate change, and you’ve got one nasty concoction.
That’s why, on Sunday, thousands of activists encircled the White House to make the point: Keystone XL is not in the national interest.
Mr. Obama, are you listening?

Infographic: Keystone XL ‘Built to Spill’

Posted on by
Reply

TransCanada claims their pipelines are the safest in the continent… So what about the 12 spills along the Keystone I line in its first year of operation? Since commencing operation in June of 2010, the Keystone I pipeline has suffered more spills than any other 1st year pipeline in U.S. history.

In addition to a nasty spill record, the proposed Keystone XL will cross one of the largest aquifers in the world – the Ogallala – which supplies drinking water to millions and provides 30% of the nation’s groundwater used for irrigation.

That’s Emma Pullman on DeSmogBlog, taking on TransCanada and its proposed Keystone XL pipeline. We’ve already covered the myths and facts about Keystone XL, but this infrographic, produced by Heather Libby of TckTckTck and DeSmogBlogs’s Pullman summarizes the situation visually.

The pipeline is just a signature short of approval–Obama has only to declare the project in the “national interest,” and he has less than ninety days to do so. In the last few weeks, opposition to Keystone XL has been heating up, with over 1,200 protestors arrested in Washington. And hundreds have already signed up for a follow-up event in October. The message is clear: oil spills in aquifers and accelerated climate change are not in the national interest.

New BP Oil Spill in the Arctic: Up to 4,200 Gallons Leaked from Pipeline

Posted on by
Reply

BP has a long history of oil spills in the Arctic. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Not content to let Exxon hog all the attention, BP has just sprung back into the spotlight with yet another oil spill — this time in Alaska’s North Slope tundra.

From Reuters:

BP said on Monday that a pipeline at its 30,000 barrel-per-day Lisburne field, which is currently closed for maintenance, ruptured during testing and spilled a mixture of methanol and oily water onto the tundra….

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said the spill occurred on Saturday and amounted to 2,100 to 4,200 gallons, affecting 4,960 square feet of gravel pad and about 2,040 square feet of wet and aquatic tundra.

This is a small spill, but it’s important for the public to take notice. For too long, we’ve been letting the oil industry dump poison into the environment and then sweep it under the rug (or water, or dirt, or snow). Heck, most of us seem to have already forgotten about the Gulf oil spill. Maybe the two recent pipeline leaks will wake us up.

Joe Romm pointed out that BP’s operations in the Arctic, just like their marine counterparts, have a dirty track record. For example:

  • The 2006 Prudhoe Bay incident when 267,000 gallons (~6400 barrels) of oil and chemicals leaked from unmonitored, corroded pipeline.
  • llegal toxic substances dumping on Alaska’s North Slope.
  • According to data compiled from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation spill database, 1.3 million gallons of toxic substances were spilled between 1996 and 2000.
  • The November 29, 2010 Prudhoe Bay spill in which 46,000 gallons leaked.
Wherever fossil fuel companies go, they cause toxic, often irreparable, damage–whether it’s Alaska, Montana, Louisiana or Ecuador. And they don’t care. Yet they want us to forgive and forget. It was an accident. Won’t happen again. We don’t need regulations. Regulations are bad for you. Yuck. Not like oil, oil is good.
How much longer are going to believe that?

Oil Spilled Into Yellowstone River

Posted on by
2

Exxon pipeline ruptures, sending 42,000 gallons of oil downstream.

The AP reports:

Hundreds of barrels of crude oil spilled into Montana’s Yellowstone River after an ExxonMobil pipeline beneath the riverbed ruptured, sending a plume 25 miles downstream and forcing temporary evacuations, officials said.

The break near Billings in south-central Montana fouled the riverbank and forced municipalities and irrigation districts Saturday to close intakes… It was unclear how far the plume might travel.

ExxonMobil officials estimated that the pipeline spilled between 750 and 1,000 barrels of crude oil–up to 42,000 gallons–before the flow was stopped. About 140 people in the Laurel area were evacuated, due to concerns about noxious fumes and possible explosions. Crews are working to clean up the oil plume, which has been measured at twenty-five miles.

For its part, ExxonMobil has sent a team to help with the cleanup and issued a statement that it “deeply regrets this release.”

This spill is important from a policy standpoint because the oil industry has plans to build new pipelines across the continent, insisting that the current pipelines are safe.

The Keystone XL project, an extension of the Keystone Pipeline, will carry oil from Alberta’s tar sands to Illinois, Oklahoma, and eventually Texas. Meanwhile, the Enbridge Northern Gateway would export tar sands oil to the coast of British Columbia. These proposals have met strong resistance from environmental and community rights groups, and many First Nations bands oppose the Northern Gateway because it would run straight through their traditional lands.

The oil spill in the Yellowstone River is hardly an isolated event. In May, for instance, TransCanada suspended oil shipments on the Keystone pipeline following two small spills in the same month.

More dangerous than the risk of spills is the expansion of Alberta’s tar sands that would probably follow the construction of new pipelines. Called the “most destructive project on earth,” the Canadian tar sands use a process that emits three times as much greenhouse gas pollution as conventional oil production. The tar sands operations also use vast amounts of water and leave toxic tailings ponds that kill hundreds of birds a year.

We know that Exxon will play down the Yellowstone River oil spill, and soon the accident will be old news. That’s why it is important to realize that the issue of oil pipeline safety reaches far beyond Montana.