http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20140626/NEWS03/140629211
As delays snag Keystone XL, momentum builds for pipeline to Canada’s
east coast
By TED BOOKER
TIMES STAFF WRITER
PUBLISHED: THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2014 AT 12:30 AM
As the U.S. delays reviewing the Keystone XL proposal, experts say
momentum has swelled for a plan to build a pipeline from the Alberta oil
sands to Canada’s east coast — crossing numerous waterways, including
the St. Lawrence River.
Experts say Canadian producers, scrambling to find more paths to export
the glut of tar-sands oil produced in Alberta, want to increase railroad
and pipeline capacity. They believe the Energy East pipeline proposed by
TransCanada Corp. of Calgary, which unlike the Keystone XL project would
not require U.S. approval, could play a key role toward that end by
delivering crude oil to the Atlantic Coast for export. The plan has been
praised by Canadian producers as a viable alternative to the Keystone XL
pipeline extension, which would transport oil from Alberta to the Gulf
Coast of Texas.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, are keeping a close eye on the proposed
line, which they view as a major threat to Canadian waterways — many of
which flow into the St. Lawrence River.
The $5.4 billion Energy East pipeline planned by TransCanada, which is
also leading the Keystone XL project, would be the largest oil line in
North America. The 2,858-mile pipeline would have the capacity to ship
1.1 million barrels daily of tar-sands oil, called diluted bitumen, from
the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Quebec and
coastal New Brunswick. That would surpass the estimated daily output of
Keystone XL’s 830,000 barrels.
The proposal calls for the conversion of an up to 40-year-old natural
gas pipeline to carry crude oil from tar sands in Alberta and
Saskatchewan to eastern Ontario; from there, it would be linked to a new
pipeline that would run to coastal New Brunswick, according to a
pre-application for the project submitted by TransCanada to Canada’s
National Energy Board. The NEB regulates the construction of pipelines
crossing provincial and international borders.
Most of the crude oil is expected to be exported unrefined from ports in
Saint John, New Brunswick, and Cacouna, Quebec. The line would cross the
St. Lawrence River west of Quebec Bridge, southwest of Quebec City.
Alternative to Keystone XL
The Energy East proposal faces stiff opposition from Canadian
environmental groups. Among them is the Council of Canadians, an
advocacy group that argues environmental risks posed by the line would
far outweigh its economic benefits. Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and
climate justice campaigner for the council, said the proposal is gaining
momentum because of Keystone XL delays. The Wall Street Journal reported
this month that the pipeline, which requires approval from the federal
government, could be built by 2018.
“I certainly wouldn’t deny that Keystone XL is leading to this push,”
Ms. Harden-Donahue said. “With the tar-sands oil industry, the situation
right now is they have a glut of bitumen. They’re getting blocked trying
to get this out west and consistently stalled and blocked to ship it
down to the U.S. via Keystone XL. So this is an attempt to ship it east.
From a regulatory standpoint, there are fewer hoops than in the U.S. to
getting this approved.”
On April 18, the Obama administration decided to extend the U.S. review
of Keystone XL because TransCanada’s route for the line faces a legal
challenge in Nebraska.
Environmental fears
Though the Canadian pipeline proposal won’t be subject to U.S. scrutiny
and regulations like Keystone XL, it is facing “mounting opposition” in
Canada, Ms. Harden-Donahue said. In particular, the Canadian Council is
concerned about the threat of oil spills that could affect the numerous
Canadian waterways that the line would cross. Bitumen poses a greater
environmental threat because of its density. If spilled, the oil would
sink to the bottom of water bodies.
“The capacity of this pipe is absolutely massive,” Ms. Harden-Donahue
said. “A spill would be a huge event because it would spill diluted
bitumen, which is proven to sink and really frustrates cleanup efforts.
The pipeline is crossing multiple waterways, and may of them are
drinking water sources and significant to the local economy for
recreational purposes, fishing and tourism.”
Impact on the St. Lawrence
By moving oil to Canada’s east coast, the pipeline would increase the
amount of crude oil shipped by freighters along the St. Lawrence River,
Ms. Harden-Donahue said.
“This crosses tributaries and follows the path of the St. Lawrence
River,” she said. “It’s essentially transforming the St. Lawrence River
into an oil corridor, with some of the dirtiest oil we have. You’re
going to see a significant increase in oil tanker traffic because of this.”
Yet the path of the proposed pipeline shouldn’t pose a major threat of
an oil spill directly into the St. Lawrence River, because the line does
not run close to the river until it reaches the Quebec City area, said
D. Lee Willbanks, executive director of Save the River, an environmental
advocacy group based in Clayton.
“Energy East seems to take a track that’s a little bit further away from
direct access to the river,” Mr. Willbanks said. “But we’re concerned
about every tributary to the St. Lawrence River, regardless of what
country it’s in and how far away it is from the river body. A tributary
would suffer the consequences of a spill, but it wouldn’t necessary
contaminate the flow toward the source of the river so that we would see
everything on the water. What we would see over the long term is a
degradation of the water coming into the river.”
Because of the relatively high density of diluted bitumen, the long-term
harm of spills that sink to the floor of water bodies could be
challenging to assess, Mr. Willbanks said.
“Wherever it hits it’s going quickly in, and who knows how long it would
foul that waterway,” he said. “If either a pipeline or ship suffered a
leak of diluted bitumen, it would be irreversible, because within a
short amount of time the stuff would go to the bottom. You don’t know
what it could do to the fish under the surface. And that could be hard
to tell. People are going to focus on the immediate cleanup efforts, but
where are we going to have the funds for a continuing review to see
where the contamination is?”
Safeguards urged
Save the River is also concerned about a proposal approved by Canada’s
National Energy Board in March to allow another Canadian oil giant to
ship crude oil through an existing line that crosses numerous
tributaries of the St. Lawrence River, Mr. Willbanks said. Enbridge
Pipelines Inc., Calgary, acquired approval to reverse the direction of
oil shipped through a 639-kilometer section of its “Line 9” pipeline
that runs from North Westover, Ontario, to Montreal. Oil will flow east,
instead of west, through the line under the plan. Its capacity is
projected to increase from about 240,000 to 300,000 barrels per day. The
plan will allow Enbridge to transport heavy crude from Alberta and the
U.S. Bakken region to refineries in Quebec and eastern Canada.
In August, Save the River joined a handful of other environmental groups
in sending a letter that advised the NEB to force Enbridge to implement
safeguards along Line 9 to address the risk of oil spills, Mr. Willbanks
said. Suggested protections in the letter included the installation of
automatic shutoff valves, fiber-optic cables to detect spills and
double-insulated piping at areas where the line crosses water bodies. In
spite of that effort, the NEB approved Enbridge’s proposal without
protections recommended by environmental groups, which included the
Ottawa Riverkeeper, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Lake Erie Waterkeeper.
Mr. Willbanks noted that Enbridge was responsible for a massive leak of
diluted bitumen in July 2010 in southwestern Michigan. More than 3
million liters of oil spilled from Line 6B into Talmadge Creek and the
Kalamazoo River, resulting in a cleanup cost of more than $1 billion.
“It was hours that this line bled oil into the Kalamazoo River before
anyone knew about it,” Mr. Willbanks said. If automatic shutoff valves
were installed, “a pressure drop in the line would cause them to shut,
and the spill would be limited to whatever is in the pipeline at the
time. It would leak probably hundreds of gallons instead of potentially
hundreds of thousands.”
No stopping oil shipping
Mr. Willbanks predicted that, regardless of the fate of the Keystone XL
and Energy East proposals, the shipment of crude oil along the St.
Lawrence River will climb.
“You’re going to see increased shipping on the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River, because there’s so much product,” he said. “If they get
it through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system, they’re
headed to the Atlantic Ocean. They can loop around to the Gulf Coast, or
ship it to foreign markets that are likely to pay a higher price.”
In 2013, the St. Lawrence Seaway moved a total of 3.7 million metric
tons of bulk liquid, a 16 percent increase from 2012 in moving bulk
liquid, according to the Great Lakes Seaway Review. In particular, there
was an increase in the number of double-hulled tankers moving
petroluem-distillates between distribution locations to keep supplies
sufficient.
Weight restrictions on the Seaway, however, limit the amount of liquid
that bulk tankers and barges may carry. The maximum freighter size
allowed on the Seaway is roughly 45,000 tons. A tanker carrying liquid
bulk on the Seaway typically will have a capacity in the range of 4,500
to 12,000 metric tons of cargo, according to the St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corp. A barge will have a capacity in the range of 6,000 to
8,000 metric tons.
Historically, efforts made by the Army Corps of Engineers to expand the
size of the Seaway and extend the shipping season have failed, Mr.
Willbanks said. While demand among oil producers could be an impetus for
reviving those efforts, Mr. Willbanks does not believe they will be
successful. The cost of expanding the Seaway, along with the
environmental risks posed by allowing larger tankers, are barriers that
would stand in the way.
“There was a multi-decade fight by the Army Corps to expand the season
and make it year-round, and that was not really settled until early this
century,” he said. “They would say, ‘We’re looking at this and putting
it up for public comment,’ and they would be overwhelmed by a public
response because of the tremendous environmental harm it would cause.
Costs continue to rise, and I think economic realities continue to make
expanding the Seaway an unattractive alternative. It could very well
come up again, but I have not heard that the potential for increased oil
shipment raised a justification, or winter navigation, at this point.”
PROJECT AT A GLANCE
The $5.4 billion Energy East pipeline would be the largest oil line in
North America.
• Length: 2,858 miles, from tar sands in Alberta and Saskatchewan to
refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick.
• Capacity: 1.1 million barrels a day.
• Route: The line would cross the St. Lawrence River southwest of Quebec
City.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
