Few would disagree the decision about whether to build the Keystone Pipeline extension should rely on science-based research, so what does the science tell us? Well, as is often the case with politics, the results appear to vary depending on one’s agenda and the statistics being highlighted.
The Congressional Energy and Environmental Subcommittees held a joint hearing on the safety and environmental features of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline last week, with expert testimony from three pipeline supporters – Mr. Lynn Helms, Director, Department of Mineral Resources, North Dakota Industrial Commission; Mr. Brigham A. McCown, Principal and Managing Director, United Transportation Advisors LLC; Mr. Paul “Chip” Knappenberger, Assistant Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute – and one opponent – Mr. Anthony Swift, Attorney, International Program, Natural Resources Defense Council. It was interesting to observe the issues highlighted by the experts depending on their views of the project.
The hearing began with Environment Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) pointing out that Keystone XL has been under review for over four years, which is the amount of time it took to fight World War II, build most of the transcontinental railroad and the typical length of a college education. Stewart suggested the lengthy process has come at “considerable expense and lost economic opportunity.”
He also stated, “During the past four years, as this project has been studied, we have learned that the pipeline is safe and environmentally sound. As a former Air Force pilot, I have personal knowledge of how important it is to reduce our reliance on sources of energy that emanate from unstable and unpredictable areas of the world. In short, the pipeline is in the national interest. There is no logical reason not to allow it to move forward.”
In his testimony, Helms said “we try to do our things in North Dakota on a science basis, this one obviously the science is in and now we are into the political phase of the Keystone XL pipeline” and explained that his state has a stake in the decision because it is the home of the Bakken Shale play, “the largest unconventional resource discovered in the United States of America.” Helms said they have a commitment to place 60,000 barrels of oil per day on Keystone XL.
Helms went on to say that 71% of North Dakota’s oil currently leaves by rail and an additional 10,000 b/d gets trucked to Canada to find a pipeline. Access to Keystone would mean 300 to 500 fewer long haul truck trips per day, which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 1 million kilograms per day. He also stated North Dakota suffers 60 to 80 oil spills per year due to truck accidents.
“We believe in North Dakota that it’s time to build KXL,” concluded Helms.
McCown said there are 2.6 million miles of pipeline in the US, which is enough to circle the Earth 100 times, and last year pipelines transported 11.3 billion barrels of crude and refined products that operators safely moved “99.999952 % of the time.”
He also pointed out that 2/3 of the energy consumed annually in the US is transported by pipeline, “and pipelines are approximately 4.5 times safer than rail and 64 times safer than commercial motor vehicles if you look at freight tons shipped.” Pipelines are also unique because they are the only transportation method that do not require a round trip to deliver supplies, he said. “Pipelines are the best when it comes to hauling large volumes of energy products over great distances.”
He also said critics are quick to point out that diluted bitumen transported from Canadian oil sands operations is more corrosive than traditional crude, which is “simply not true,” as no spill has been proven to be caused by internal pipeline corrosion. “In fact, Canadian diluted bitumen – sometimes called dilbit – is actually less corrosive than oil from Mexico, Colombia and even California.”
However, while the first two expert testimonials cited statistics that supported building Keystone XL, it was quickly clear that the NRDC’s Mr. Swift held an opposing view when he began using the term “tar sands” oil to describe the product Keystone would transport from Northern Alberta. The phrases tar sands and oil sands are used interchangeably, with the former often favored by critics seeking to highlight the negative environmental impacts associated with developing Canada’s bitumen resources.
“Tar sands diluted bitumen differs substantially from the lighter conventional crudes historically moved on the US pipeline system,” he said. “Pipelines moving thick diluted bitumen operate at higher temperatures than pipeline moving less viscous, lighter crudes,” and studies have shown higher temperature pipelines spill more frequently than those operating at lower temperatures, Swift said.
Swift pointed out that pipelines in Northern Midwestern states moving dilbit have spilled more frequently than pipes in other regions of the country and he mentioned recent spills in Kalamazoo, Michigan and Mayflower, Arkansas.
In addition to the risk of rupture, there have been leak detection problems, said Swift. “According to State [US Department of State], Keystone XL’s real-time leak detection system cannot detect leaks smaller than half a million gallons per day.” And dilbit spills are harder to clean than conventional crude, especially in water because the heavier product sinks rather than float on the surface.
With regard to climate change, Swift said without Keystone XL, Canada’s tar sands would be developed more slowly and thus release fewer cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. Developing the resource is more energy intensive than drilling for conventional crude, so the process releases greater volumes of greenhouse gases.
“The significance of these emissions to global climate change can be summed up in this way, if you find your house is on fire, the question of how much gasoline you would have to pour on the fire to really make a difference given its size is the wrong one to ask, at least if your goal is to put the fire out,” said Swift. “Tar sands is significantly more carbon intensive than conventional crude and the choice to replace our conventional fuel stock with tar sands is the wrong one if we are serious about addressing climate change.”
