|
Alberta battles headwinds EPA pressures Obama administration to demand more GHG data on planned Keystone addition; industry says EPA estimates outdated Gary Park For Petroleum News
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach thinks he’s making progress in persuading U.S. lawmakers that the oil sands industry is cleaning up its act.
But, apparently, not everyone in Washington is buying that message.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates U.S. environmental laws, has urged the Obama administration to stall progress on a US$12 billion expansion of TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline until more complete information is available about the carbon footprint created by the oil sands.
The EPA recommended in a letter signed by assistant administrator Cynthia Giles that the “discussions of (greenhouse gas) emissions be expanded to include … an estimate of the extraction-related (greenhouse gas) emissions associated with the long-term importation of oil sands crude.”
She estimated that emissions from the oil sands are about 82 percent greater than the average crude refined in the U.S., on a well-to-fuel-tank basis.
“Alongside the national security benefits of importing crude oil from a stable trading partner, we believe the national security implications of expanding the nation’s long-term commitment to a relatively high carbon source of oil should also be considered,” Giles wrote.
She calculated that the additional pollution from oil sands development would be equivalent to 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, matching the output from seven coal-fired power plants.
Giles also argued that additions to the existing Keystone pipeline, with the eventual goal of delivering oil sands crude to Gulf Coast refineries, would promote more growth of the oil sands industry.
“Based on our review, there is a reasonably close causal relationship between issuing a cross-border permit for the Keystone XL project and increased extraction of oil sands crude in Canada intended to supply that pipeline,” Giles said.
“Not only will this pipeline transport large volumes of oil sands crude for at least 50 years from a known, dedicated source in Canada to refineries in the Gulf Coast, there are no significant current export markets for this crude oil other than the U.S. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that extraction will likely increase if the pipeline is constructed.”
Giles’ letter challenged TransCanada’s assessment of long-term energy needs, suggesting the company had overlooked the potential development of clean energy technologies and measures that might be taken to reduce future dependence on oil.
CAPP: EPA estimates based on 2005 data Travis Davies, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, told reporters the EPA estimates of emissions were based on 2005 data, since when the industry has made constant gains in shrinking its environmental footprint.
He said the most recent studies indicate the overall cycle of GHG emissions of fuel from the oil sands are only 5 to 15 percent higher than conventional crude.
The EPA letter follows comments by Henry Waxman, a Democratic congressman who chairs an energy and commerce committee in Washington, who told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Keystone pipeline would be a “step in the wrong direction” by increasing U.S. reliance on the “dirtiest source of transportation fuel.”
A spokesman for Stelmach said the EPA submission is only one step in the regulatory process facing the Keystone application.
“Our position is that the best available information should be a key component of any jurisdiction’s consideration of projects of this nature,” he said.
Echoing the negative views of the oil sands among U.S. lawmakers and officials, David Jacobson, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, told the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference in Calgary on July 19, that “more needs to be done” by the oil sands industry to “demonstrate how they’re meeting the challenges of providing energy security while meeting their obligations of environmental stewardship.”
Industry leaders need to do more to exceed government mandates to reduce the carbon footprint, he said.
Stelmach: ‘open dialogue’ Stelmach, following a series of recent meetings with governors and senators, told PNWER that U.S. lawmakers are eagerly soaking up as much information as they can about efforts by the industry to reduce GHG emissions and slow the spread of toxic tailings ponds at oil sands plants.
“It is the most open dialogue we’ve had — meaningful discussions,” he told reporters.
U.S. legislators also gave a lift to Alberta’s lobbying efforts following the PNWER summit, when a group of them received a guided tour of the oil sands.
Gary Mar, the Alberta government’s envoy in Washington, D.C., said the province wanted to “showcase the technology and innovation” that accompanies oil sands development.
Mike Schaufler, a Democratic member of the Oregon House of Representatives, said he was impressed by the technological advances and the sophisticated pipeline system that carries Alberta crude to the U.S.
“I am more comfortable buying oil from Alberta, which shares similar environmental goals with the U.S., than from foreign sources,” Schaufler said.
Meanwhile, the Canada West Foundation, a non-partisan research organization, has issued a new study showing that over the past year, when the oil sands have attracted more global attention than ever before, the world news media carried 4,015 oil sands-related stories — 54.6 percent negative, 31.4 percent positive and 14 percent neutral.
The tally is “probably a day in the life of Tiger Woods,” wryly observed foundation Chief Executive Officer Roger Gibbins.
The harshest of that coverage occurred within Canada, said Don Thompson, president of the Oil Sands Developers Group, adding: “I always wonder about why Canadians are so negative about themselves and that includes stories about the oil sands.”
The most negative reporting showed up in the web media, where environmental nongovernment organizations are very active and was least evident in the conventional international media.
Thompson said that Canadians — contrary to the tone of the media coverage — overwhelmingly support development of the oil sands, provided that is done in a responsible manner.
He said a good deal of coverage “is based on misrepresentation, manipulation of data by environmental advocacy groups,” while the media fails to balance off that criticism “by taking a look at the real science and the real facts.”
| 