MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – A proposed oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast could substantially reduce U.S. dependency on oil from the Middle East and other regions, according to a report commissioned by the Obama administration.
The study suggests the 1,900-mile pipeline, coupled with a reduction in overall U.S. oil demand, “could essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports longer term.” The $7 billion project would carry crude oil extracted from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas.
The report, prepared by a Massachusetts firm at the request of the U.S. Energy Department, was completed Dec. 23 and made public this week, as President Barack Obama prepares to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Friday at the White House.
The project’s developer, Calgary-based TransCanada, hailed the report by EnSys Energy & Systems Inc. The so-called Keystone XL pipeline – which doubles the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada – is projected to produce more than 500,000 barrels a day of crude oil derived from formations of sand, clay and water in western Canada.
“This study supports what we have been saying for some time – that Keystone XL will improve U.S. energy security and reduce dependence on foreign oil from the Middle East and Venezuela,” TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said in a statement. “Keystone XL will also create 20,000 high-paying jobs for American families and inject $20 billion into the U.S. economy.”
Environmental groups pointed to another aspect of the report that said the United States could likely meet its demand for oil even if the pipeline extension is not built.
“Why rush a decision to build a giant pipeline that will be with us for the next 50 years?” asked Liz Barratt-Brown, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Aren’t there other alternatives for our fuels that we can, and must, find in this time period?”
The Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups call the pipeline an ecological disaster waiting to happen and say the so-called tar sands produce “dirty” oil that requires huge amounts of energy to extract. They said Obama should push Harper to ensure that oil from tar sands does not endanger the public health.
As the project’s largest potential customer, the United States has “the right and the responsibility to be pushing the Canadians on the production of this dirty oil,” said Barratt-Brown.
Activists plan to gather across from the White House on Friday to protest the pipeline project. Obama and Harper are expected to talk about clean energy, although it is not certain whether the tar sands pipeline will be on the agenda.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton must grant a permit allowing the pipeline to cross the U.S-Canadian border before TransCanada can proceed. Clinton said in October she was “inclined” to approve the project but has since backed off those remarks.
Lawmakers from both parties have written to the State Department for and against the pipeline, which would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma before reaching Texas. Some of the strongest opposition is in Nebraska, where the state’s two U.S. senators have raised sharp questions. The pipeline would travel over parts of the massive Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to about 2 million people in Nebraska and seven other states and supports irrigation.
A spokeswoman for the Canadian Embassy declined to comment Thursday.
Gosh, when are these eco-terrorists going to stop. I bet this woman (barrat) eats out regularly, flies in airplanes, drives a luxury car, and lives in a large home. I also can guarantee you she is wearing polyester based or containing fabrics. When do the eco-terrorists lead by example? All they want to do is cripple the economy and have us all live in caves without fires. (Carbon dioxide emissions ya know).
” pipeline would travel over parts of the massive Ogallala aquifer ”
Dang, how deep is this aquifer ? 4 foot ?
Is this just an offshoot of frackophobia or a real concern ?
This is one of the answers to get our country to stop dependence on middle eastern oil. The other is for the goverment to get drilling back to full swing in the deepwater gulf of mexico. We have the oil and the technology to get it safely. There have been many great discoverys just off the Texas coast. Risk, yes there is always risk, it is part of the business, and yes things will happen, but it is more important for the energy security of our nation to stop depending on middle eastern oil.
Anyone have a better real idea that will work ?
Not that I’m against the pipeline, but what would it cost to build a new state of the art refinery in Montana with a large railroad spur? There hasn’t been a new refinery built from scratch for over 35 years. We could certainly justify a new refinery on that basis alone. A new refinery would be more efficient than a retrofit of a 50 year old one. Put the refinery 50 miles from any town so the local eco terrorists will have to hitch a ride to the boycott. It just seems like a no brainer. No eco terrorists boycotting the route of the proposed pipeline. There are existing railroads that run from Montana to just about anywhere in North America. The sands crude is a heavy crude and would require a rebuild of many of the light crude refineries along the Gulf coast. Cleveland is the only large heavy crude refinery I know of and that is a long way from the Gulf.
‘Dirty oil”? Give me a break….. Just like Hotpuppy said, all of the nicer things that make life comfy and civil come from oil. It’s just incredible that these so called “educated” people can’t grasp that concept.