The Keystone XL pipeline: Will humanity's survival interests prevail?
The stakes for oil corporations involved in the project are large, very large. But so are the stakes for environmental activists fighting the threat of climate change. In August last, well over a thousand people courted arrest in front of the White House in Washington D.C. The target of their anger was a huge project for construction of an oil pipeline called Keystone XL.
The new pipeline, if materialised, will run from the province of Alberta in Canada throughout the entire length of the United States, and all the way up to oil refineries located in Texas. Extra large, XL, the pipeline surely will be -- 1,700 miles in length, as compared with the existing Keystone pipeline which is 1,200 miles long. Furthermore, the construction project does not stand alone, but is part and parcel of a scheme aimed at expanding the extraction of bitumen, an unconventional type of oil produced from tar sands.
Canada is where the largest amount of bitumen is extracted worldwide, much of it being exported to the US. If US President Obama gives the green light and Keystone XL is built, the extraction of bitumen is expected to double -- from roughly 900,000 barrels to 1.8 million barrels per day! Hence, the lobbying by Canadian and international oil corporations is intense.
Since the end of last year, the Keystone scheme has become a major public controversy in the US. To understand why, it is necessary to look briefly at the nature of bitumen extraction. This unconventional oil is basically mined in two ways.
In surface mining, trees and plant cover are stripped from the top-layers of the soil so as to expose the bitumen located beneath. Here there is massive digging: two tons of bitumen-rich material need to be collected to obtain one barrel of oil. Hence, the open pit mining results in huge, gaping holes in the earth, scarring the landscape.
But the main method used to reach bitumen is called in-situ mining, where high-pressure steam is injected into layers of bitumen-rich soil below the surface, to separate the oil from the sands and make sure it can be piped to the surface. Here, water needs to be heated in order to produce steam, which in turn requires huge quantities of energy.
Both methods of mining reportedly require large quantities of water, from 3 to 7 barrels of water per 1 barrel of oil! Much of the polluted water ends up in lake-size tailing ponds. And this is only one of the environmentally destructive consequences of bitumen extraction. Its mining also results in destruction of huge chunks of boreal forests, in loss of biodiversity and in oil spills, as the bitumen is transported towards US refineries. One of the spills US opponents of the Keystone XL project have referred to, is the one caused by the existing Keystone pipeline, which has led to pollution of a vast stretch of the Kalamazoo river.
These environmental implications of bitumen extraction and transportation can in no way be belittled. Yet, there is one implication of the scheme that is truly global in kind, threatening the survival of humanity. Worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in 2010 reached record levels. Against this backdrop, the danger that Canadian and US emissions of green housegases will increase due to expanded extraction of bitumen, concerns humanity as a whole. And the impact on emissions to all accounts will be dramatically negative.
Surely, quantitative assessments vary, but they all point in the same direction. According to a peer-reviewed study of Canada's environmental ministry released in August, Canadian emissions of GHG are set to increase, perhaps even double, between 2005 and 2020 if oil sand extraction be expanded. The Agency for Environmental Protection (EPA) a US governmental institution, has calculated that CO2 emissions from extraction and up to the sale of tar sands oil at gasoline stations, are 82% higher for tar sand oil than for conventional crude.
Calculations put forward by independent critics of the pipeline project are even higher. The Polaris Institute, a Canadian research centre, cites data indicating that emissions in the case of bitumen extraction are three to four times the normal rate (!). Figures on emissions put forward by the International Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) too indicate that any extraction of tar sands oil is prohibitive. Hence, opponents of the Keystone XL project believe that all attempts aimed at preventing accelerated climate change will be undermined if the Canadian and US governments fail to scrap the pipeline project.
Yet, if Keystone XL is an insane project when discussed from the perspective of humanity's survival, how can the adamant attitude of the oil corporations be explained? Is this simply a question of corporate greed, and the desire to reap extraordinary profits? The answer seems less definite at first. Profitability of tar sands extraction was not assured for a long time. Mining bitumen is expensive, it can only be assured if the market price of crude oil stays at a high level -- such as the $90 plus level prevailing at the moment.
Hence, to clarify the behaviour of oil corporations seeking to extract bitumen, one needs to refer to the historical peak oil production has reached: the fact that oil extraction from conventional sources in 2006 reached an all time high, as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the institution defending the interests of Western oil consumers, admitted late last year. Since the present high market price of crude is not caused by conjunctural factors, but is the outcome of the depletion of conventional sources, extraction of crude from tar sands has become very profitable. One therefore understands the pressure that is building up on policymakers. They are asked to scrap their climate change agenda and prioritise a corporate agenda, which by all accounts is threatening for humanity and other species on earth.
It is important to note that opposition to the project does not come just from climate change and environmental activists. Their opposition is crucial: in December 2010 a campaign against tar sands oil extraction was launched, which is being supported by the entire range of US environmental organisations. But there is more. In June, 2010, 50 members of the US Congress spoke out against construction of the pipeline. Further, the chairperson of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman has urged the US State Department, which bears responsibility because the planned pipeline is cross-border, to block the project. So far the State Department has only drafted environmental assessments of the scheme deemed scandalous.
Meanwhile, President Obama has been sitting on the fence instead of rejecting the scheme outright. In fact, his statements on tar sand extraction, made during his visit to Canada in 2009, indicate that he is bending over towards the oil lobby and might well bury the pledges to fight climate change that he made when canvassing for the presidency.
The climate dangers heralding from tar sand oil extraction are twofold: a massive loss of Canadian boreal forests which presently act as a reserve of CO2; plus dramatically increased emissions of GHG. Hence, if the project is approved, Canada will surely default on the obligations it undertook under the Kyoto Protocol. And any commitments Obama has made will become meaningless. Shouldn't Bangladesh and other vulnerable countries grill the two, the American and Canadian governments, when the next World Climate Conference is held in November?
Comments