The residents of Pavilion, Wyoming, had been complaining about the strange taste of their drinking water for over a decade. EPA testing recently confirmed what many had suspected: The strange taste came from chemicals either released by or used in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, a technique used to extract oil, natural gas and other from deep within the earth’s crust. Fracking involves injecting various substances into rock to in essence cause mini-earthquakes to create mini-fissures in the crust so as to allow easier access to oil, gases and other items. In fact it has been linked to the triggering of somewhat more substantial — and more dangerous — quakes.
Even the sand used in fracking is controversial. It’s dug up from huge open-pit mines that, as open pit mines tend to do, not only scar the landscape but to pollute it and the water table as well. Rural Minnesotans, once very welcoming to the frac sand mining companies, are starting to wonder whether the dangers posed to land and water are worth it.
Speaking of rural America, TransCanada wants the Keystone XL pipeline so it can a) more readily reach ports capable of hosting supertankers and b) drive up (that’s right, drive up) the price of fuel in the Midwest. Here’s how it works:
The real reasons a pipeline is “needed” are not because TransCanada wants to put that oil in our cars or give us jobs, but because they want to get to a port to ship it overseas, and the British Columbia ports are too shoaled up to accommodate oil supertankers; the biggest boats they can handle are less than a thousand feet in length, and supertankers are typically well over 1,100 feet. (By the way, the unsuitability of the BC ports renders the “we’ll just sell it to China if you don’t buy it” argument ridiculous; without the BC ports, there’s no cost-effective way to get it to China, or any other country not named the U.S. of A.) As for the effect on US gas prices, check this out (courtesy of Bernie Sanders and The Guardian, which published what no major US paper likely ever would):
State Department officials tout the energy security benefits of Keystone XL, but TransCanada itself admits that by removing an oil oversupply in the Midwest, the pipeline would result in “an increase in the price of heavy crude” that should net Canadian oil producers a $1.9bn increase in revenue at the expense of American consumers. Gulf Coast refiners, which would receive tar sands oil from Keystone XL, have detailed a strategy to their investors to export the oil out of the United States.
The pipeline is the only way the frozen tar sands muck — which must be specially and expensively treated for it to even be able to flow in a pipe in the first place — can be made profitable for TransCanada. Worse yet, getting it out of the ground releases plenty of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere well before the oil even reaches the pipeline, much less anyone’s gas tanks; that’s one reason why James Hansen calls the Keystone XL project “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet“.
To finish on a pleasanter note, here’s an excerpt from a book by a friend of mine who lives in rural Minnesota, within an easy hour’s drive of the proposed frac sand mines in Winona County. Enjoy!



87 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
There’s such a thing as the shit hitting the fan and then there’s a Montana cow pasture hitting a JPL wind tunnel.
There’s also the matter of how abrasive hot, sandy tar sludge would be to the steel pipe it’s going through. I can’t imagine it having much of a lifetime.
PW !
Thank you to everyone protesting this pipeline ! The greedy Canuck Oil Barons are calling it “Ethical Oil”, which is like “Clean Coal” … Horse Hooey !
PW!
I grew up in the oil field. First rule of oil companies is never trust oil companies.
If you need to use the adjective, it’s probably a lie…
In oil company speak, “ethical” means makes us a butt load of money for little cost and only directly kills a few people in the process.
Those it kills indirectly do not, of course, count.
I’d love to see a Reporter ask PBO if this definition of “Ethical Oil” is an accurate one …
Hello, everyone!
Dream on…
PW!
Tonight at the Nation Magazine/NYC New School panel discussion, Naomi Klein said that since the pipeline won’t happen or won’t happen until 2013, TransCanada, being in business to make $$, cannot and will not wait, and will pull out of the project. I doubt it will be built by volunteers.
PETRO !
We can only wish, but my fear is that Obama is trying to pull another fast one on us.
AitchD !
Those are “externalities” and do not need to be charged to their costs on the balance sheets.
I am pretty sure he is just punting this one past the election, so as not to piss off the base any more than he already has.
I’m just astonished that not a single major American media source has bothered to point out that there’s no cost-effective way for Canada to get the oil out by sea.
Exactly. Then in 2013 he can either betray us again with impunity, or there’ll be a Rethug in the White House to do it for him. Isn’t that special?
It’s presently being repeated…
http://www.thenation.com/video/164494/watch-michael-moore-naomi-klein-and-others-owss-possibilities?rel=emailNation
The corporate oligarchy takes care of its own.
That wouldn’t surprise me. Tar sands are expensive to extract and even more expensive to refine; the Orinoco Belt tar fields of Venezuela didn’t become profitable until after oil started consistently selling above $50 a barrel, and the Athabascan fields weren’t seriously considered until oil was consistently over $70 a barrel.
I think they can only maximize their profits by selling it to China or Japan, which do not have adequate (or any) domestic sources and where demand is increasingly high.
I would add that most of the coal produced here in Montana is also shipped to China, while virtually all of the timber cut in the Northwest is shipped to Japan.
Elizabeth Kolbert alerted us four years ago…
Jeebus, Pavillion WY is in any news? I passed through there a jillion years ago as a kid, although I’ve been in Riverton several times, as we’d go from Casper to Jackson through Riverton.
That’s all Wind River Indian Reservation Country there. Sacajawea is buried there.
Yep, tolled the death knell of the Persimmon driver, TaylorMade developed its hollow steel ‘Pittsburgh Persimmon’ driver, and by 2000 the USGA and the R&A had to alter their rules and allow large-face, titanium alloy clubs.
She was a Lemhi Shoshone and that is a (mostly Wind River, but also some Lemhi) Shoshone and Arapaho reservation.
Yup.
Yup. And the only way they can ship it to China or Japan in a cost-effective manner is through the Port of Houston.
pw!
It’s shocking to learn that after five minutes I haven’t been inundated with requests to compose a MyFDL Diary.
Worse yet, getting it out of the ground releases plenty of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere well before the oil even reaches the pipeline, much less anyone’s gas tanks; that’s one reason why James Hansen calls the Keystone XL project “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet“.
It’s all frozen tundra, perma-frost tundra even…! Eon’s worth of Carbon capture is unleashed immediately into the atmosphere… Wtf, over…? *gah*
While horrible, the tar sands are well south of the arctic circle and not in the tundra/permafrost zone, though it is plenty cold there in the winter.
Time for me to toddle off. Take care all.
Okay, it just tears up the vast expanses of Taiga or Boreal Forests in Alberta and Saskatchewan…! 8-(
To put it in proper perspective folks, the Athabascan Tarsands field is about the size of Texas…! 8-(
A supplemental is required for rerouting the pipeline. This time it will be done by other than the Oil company. They will vet information that was not vetted in the first EIR. Their will be more opportunity to block/delay the project. The Oil company may abandon the effort.
Good perspective CT.
Cal Berkeley students have reoccupied Sproul Plaza!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&feature=youtu.be
The Oil company may abandon the effort.
Are you kidding me…? That much Oil…! As if…! ;-)
Elizabeth Kolbert writes “The tar sands begin near the border of Saskatchewan, around the latitude of Edmonton, and extend, in three major deposits, north and west almost to British Columbia. All in all, they cover—or, more accurately, underlie—some fifty-seven thousand square miles, an area roughly the size of Florida.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_kolbert#ixzz1dN5j2EAu
G’night!
It’s what Naomi Klein said tonight, TransCanada won’t wait any longer.
Ah, but it’s expensive as hell to extract and process — at least $30 a barrel, which is ridiculously high and why nobody would consider going after it until oil was getting well over $60 a barrel.
It’s so expensive, in fact, that the only ways to transport it and still turn a profit are by supertanker or pipeline — and guess what, there are no supertanker-capable ports on Canada’s west coast. So if they want to sell it to China or Japan, they have to pipeline it to Houston.
Exactly. As even China and Japan wean themselves off of oil, the profit margin for the stuff, especially expensively-produced stuff like tar sands oil, will drop ever lower. Delaying the pipeline a year and a half means that there will be a year and a half less time to profit from it before the price of oil drops below the threshold needed for Keystone XL to be profitable.
*heh* Give Global Warming another year or two and Resolute and the Northwest Passage will be able to handle the Super Tankers…! ;-)
Filthy lucre also abhors a vacuum…
Does that make alternative energy, wave, rivers,clean energy space: solar (PV and thermal); wind; fuel cells; geothermal; cleaner utilities; power efficiency; smart meters; power storage and backup; clean transportation; ethanol and biofuels, look more attractive to investors?
The carbon footprint, the environmental cost is much less so you have offsets to trade on the exchange.
Devil’s advocacy on late night? G
Well, if TransCanada really wants to do this, maybe they could dredge out some deeper ports in Canada. More than 100 years ago, engineers figured out how to reverse the flow of the Chicago river (made it flow backwards.)
http://www.aviewoncities.com/chicago/chicagoriver.htm
Don’t we have capable engineers anymore?
Perhaps they could build a fleet of smaller tankers that could go to port in Canada. I’m sure they could, but they’d rather defile an entire strip of land from Canada to Texas.
I hope Naomi Klein is right that they will now abandon this devastating project.
What they need to do is to is leave all that oil intact under all those vast tracts of virgin forestland…! 8-(
Moi…? ;-)
MIght require many many Sterno cans… *g*
Sounds like the best plan to me!
I don’t know why they are even considering this stupid idea.
Check these options out. http://www.pcouncil.org/habitat-and-communities/wave-tidal-and-offshore-wind-energy/
Should have added:
Is it possible that greed makes people have bad ideas?
Speaking of “everything is connected”
The BC port issue:
Clive Cussler wrote a book, Arctic Drift, a few years back that is premised on an evil corporation operating out of a fictional port that is obviously modeled after Kitimat BC, where the western terminus of a possible Keystone pipeline would end up. In your post you mention the navigational hazards of the route between Kitimat, at the head of Kitimat Arm, which feeds into Wright Sound.
Cussler, who used to be a fairly right-wing novelist, in this book assails corporate greed and shows concern about CO2 levels.
Maybe someone could approach him to pitch in against Keystone XL. Cussler is fairly well off. I don’t know the guy, but maybe some firedog does?
Texas is 268,581 sq miles.
The tar sands cover an area of about 50,000 sq miles of which 4700 sq miles are surface mine possible – and the surface mining is the only cost effective way to get the oil.
So the area in question is a bit like the size of the census’s “Greater Boston” area
I thought the BC pipeline was dead because it could not get native peoples permission to cross their land. Is it still alive?
The excellent post by PW points out the goal is to reduce US supple by shipping to the gulf and overseas so as to get a price increase in the US via decreased supply in North America.
I had wondered why there was such resistance to building a refinery in Canada – now I understand that contrary to Obama’s lower cost and national security pretend, the pipeline is meant to increase cost, and a new refinery in the midwest would lower prices.
This is the most powerful argument against the pipeline I’ve read. To be honest my sympathies were laying more with the self-interested unions, but this persuaded me. Well done.
TransCanada is a transportation company, they make money collecting tolls on the transport of product through their pipelines. TransCanada does not own the tar sands “muck” nor does TransCanada make money when the price of oil increases. My recollection of the US rules is TransCanada cannot own or market both pipelines and product. TransCanada ships from A to B, what happens after product reaches B is of zero concern to TransCanada; it is the shipper’s business.
While I am sure those who do own oil and refined oil will export it is worth pointing out that Canada is already the largest exporter of oil to the US, more than twice the volume of petroleum than we import from Saudi Arabia.
The idea that increasing supply increases costs is contrary to every economics class I ever took.
If you want to oppose the pipeline because of the carbon emitted in extracting from tar sands (though there are much less carbon intensive processes now available, see Penn State process for example), that is fine. If you want to oppose the pipeline because of risks of rupture (which risks are mitigated by control/montioring/spacing of mainline shutoff valves), that is fine too.
If you want to base your opposition on unsupported speculations that are contrary to publicly available facts, that is not fine. That is disingenuous, a la Fox News style reporting.
And finally, if you want to oppose the pipeline understand you are implicitly supporting offshore drilling, much more risky as we saw with Deppwater Horizon, and imports from the MIddle East with all the wars, occupations costs & terrorism that entails.
Powerful if you overlook the factual errors & baseless speculation.
And what is the cost of producing a barrel of Saudi oil after factoring in the military support, wars, deaths and terrorism that it requires to keep that particular avenue of supply open to us?
Stats on oil imports.
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Baseless speculation? It’s based on TransCanada’s own presentations to investors, Bob. As you would know if you followed the links in my post.
What this might do is revive interest in a proposal to build a pipeline from Flanagan, Illinois to the Gulf extending the already built Alberta Clipper ta sands line. This was floated two years ago by ExxonMobile and Enbridge but it failed to get approval of the FERC on technical grounds.
One of the best (and probably only) books on the tar sands environmental impacts on Alberta is by William Marsden, “Stupid to the Last Drop”. And speaking of how “everything is connected”, I think Matt Taibbi in “Griftopia” gives a good explanation of how speculators have jiggered oil prices over the past few years by commodity futures indexes.
Wait till they get it together on the water pipeline. They’d just love to turn Minnesota into the land of 10,000 dry holes.
Oooh, nice segue from your cite-free attack on my cite-plentiful post, Bob. What you’re not telling everyone is that oil demand in the US has actually been dropping significantly in recent years, as this September 29, 2011 Wall Street Journal article reminds us yet again. Most of this demand drop is due to the worldwide recession, but as more hybrid and fully-electric cars hit the market, demand’s not going to bounce back to pre-2008 levels even were the economy to magically go into Boom Mode starting tomorrow.
That’s why time is of the essence for Keystone XL’s backers — and why a delay of even a year means, as Canadian Naomi Klein and others have stated, likely means the end of the project.
We’re talking about stuff that (as mentioned in the New Yorker piece AitchD cited) even in 2007 cost over $30 a barrel to process — and since (see chart shown at this link) oil didn’t start to consistently sell above $40 a barrel until 2005, and has for the most part, aside from the massive 2008 price spike that triggered the burst in the economic bubble, stayed well below $100 until this year, Keystone XL’s window of profitability is shrinking as the global recession drags on and as more countries continue to switch to other forms of energy.
Europe in particular is pushing alternative forms in large part because they don’t want to be slaves to the whims of Vladimir Putin. China itself, the intended destination for much of Keystone XL’s oil, has ramped up its commitment to getting off both oil and coal because they’re about to lose to climate change the Himalayan glaciers that feed the rivers that water much of China’s (and India’s!) arable land; between this threat and the loss of cropland to pollution, it’s no wonder China’s been compelled to start buying up farmland in places like Brazil and Africa — and, in Africa, butting heads with the European nations and multinational companies that also want to use Africa as their own private granary. (And of course China stands to corner the alternate-energy market because they subsidize their solar and wind industries the way we subsidize our multinational oil industries.)
Oh, wow, an actual link from you to actual facts. Too bad for you they don’t contradict anything in my post, but nice try.
It already has. But if Keystone XL was running into opposition from the oil-state Republicans of Nebraska, Kansas and even Oklahoma, what sort of chance does Enbridge have in places that are just as fond if not fonder of their aquifers and farmland? Yeah, they can try threatening eminent domain — just as TransCanada was doing to get people to sign on the dotted line. I don’t think that would be a good way to win friends and influence people.
Nice misstatement of TransCanada’s own plans, Bob. For your own edification, here it is again:
As Papau points out, this is likely why TransCanada’s not building its own refineries for this stuff: Since the goal is to boost their profits by driving up prices and by displacing other oil at US gas pumps with their own, building a refinery would in their view be spending far too much of their own money to shoot themselves in the foot.
Again, TransCanada is not a Canadian oil producer & would not profit from this circumstance. Nor is transCanada a refiner of oil. It simply transports oil and gets paid via tolls.
If you want a cite to support the FACT that TransCanada is neither a producer nor refiner of oil, check out their website & read about their business.
I am glad oil consumption is going down, I hope it is eliminated in my lifetime. That said, our dependence on MidEast oil has been literally murderous. The focus of tar sands opposition should be on mandating implementation of maximum available technoglies to minimize carbon emissions, not prohibiting transport of product that is being mined.
Oil wis currently trading at over $98 per barrel yesterday, well below $100? Oil is a global market so the fact there is a supply gut in constrained area of the US Midwest is nice for the US Midwest but hardly a major factor in world oil prices.
http://www.oil-price.net/
Hell, even before the 2008 crash, US banks vastly preferred investing in US wind farms to US coal-burning power plants, and they still won’t touch nuclear with a ten-foot pole, Price-Anderson or no.
And wind’s prices have been dropping, too.
Maybe you missed the Alberta Clipper Pipeline when it was installed through North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois in the last two years. It’s not your fault if you did because it was completely under the radar. State and local officials and judges fell right into line.
TransCanada is talking about relieving an oversupply due to lack of transport in a very small area of the global market. That oversupply will be depleted one way of the other, either by new transport of redirection of product to higher priced markets. Supply & demand, econ 101.
TranCanada also notes, in the quote you provide, the $1.9 Bln redounds to the benefit of Canadian producers, not TransCanada which again is not an oil producer or refiner.
Nice try at distracting from this, Bob:
And here’s more stuff you don’t want anyone else to see:
Of course, as the article goes on to state, once US senator Ron Wyden started publicizing possible Canadian oil price manipulation, the embarrassed Mr. Cunha started singing a different tune, claiming that Keystone XL would “in no way” raise the cost of oil.
Yup, and Enbridge pipelines in the US have been in the news but not for the right reasons. And as I’ve already noted with the link to the frac sand article, and was thinking of noting with links to the less-than-desirable side effects of the oil boom in western North Dakota, the residents of those areas are getting less enamored by the day with this manifestation of the oil industry.
Also, the Flanagan plan, which the Clipper needs to achieve its full profitability goals, has already been rejected twice by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission:
Of course, now that Keystone XL is on the ropes, the Flanagan plan will likely be revived. The good news is that we can get out in front of this and raise awareness in the populated areas the pipeline must traverse. It’s one thing to sneak a pipeline into relatively-people-empty parts of the Dakotas and northern Minnesota. It’s quite another to try it in places where there are lots more people, especially if those people are mobilized to stop it.
Please explain how $3 more per barrel this would enrich TransCanada. TransCanada is a pipeline company with some storage capability. They are paid based on volume transported pursuant to filed tariff rates. Where is the price manipulation? Where is the motive? TransCanada does not own oil or refine oil. They own toll roads, not the cars & trucks that drive on it.
You have provided nothing to counter that basic fact. TransCanada does not gain or lose from changes in the price of oil. Not unless the price goes down below the cost of production, you stated it as $30/bbl, in which case TransCanada will have no oil to ship. That will not happen anytime soon.
I’m assuming you mean Enbridge has not been in the news because of the oil spills associated with its pipelines. That’s true. Enbridge has been very successful in controlling the news cycle reporting of these oil spills, like the one in Southwestern Michigan that sent thousands of gallons of toxic materials into a river and into Lake Michigan. Many more of these spills are never even reported in the general media.
So it’s not about family farmers and aquifers, it’s about stopping any pipeline anywhere.
That’s profound but largely ignored, neglected, or dismissed.
Its phrasing and this diary’s title remind me of the first program(me) in James Burke’s wonderful BBC series Connections, which he titled ‘The Trigger Effect’.
BTW, if a constrained pocket of the US Midwest is enjoying lower oil prices that means consumers outside that pocket are paying more due to an inability to reach that constrained oversupply. Transport capability would make this supply available to the rest of the US and other markets, lowering prices outside the US Midwest.
I am not sure why Bernie Sanders, who I admire greatly, is so concerned about keeping oil prices higher in New England and other parts of the US outside this Midwest pocket. How is that good policy?
If he opposes on environmental grounds, I can respect that though I think resources would be better spent addressing the extraction issues and not the transportation. The oil will be extracted for as long as it is in demand. In terms of gallons spilled and resulting environmental damage I will take pipeline record versus transocean tankers and offshore drilling any day of the week.
In addition to my opposition of offshore drilling and oceanic transport, my support for the pipeline is based primarily on reducing the need for the US to be involved in occupying the Mideast and Gulf, and the terrorism and wars that result from that occupation. Reducing dependence on Mideast oil and oil overall should be the twin goals of US energy policy.
I think this spill was well reported, as it should have been, but overshadowed in impact & coverage at the time by the disaster in the Gulf.
Good point, but it also shows how successful these oil companies are at controlling the news cycle. Have you heard anything lately about the other Keystone pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River?
Exactly. And PBS/NPR are heavily subsidized by Big Oil, so you won’t see much coverage there, either.
Meanwhile, the sales pitch Bob’s been pushing here — that Keystone XL is destined for the gas tanks of Americans and will crowd out Evil Saudi Oil — is not exactly true: The biggest single chunk of it (at least 20% and very likely a lot more) is going straight to Port Arthur to be shipped overseas courtesy of Valero, and that won’t be the only chunk of this chunky goo to go outside of the US. In other words, we’re not adding jobs (TransCanada has admitted it lied about that), we’re not giving the middle finger to the Evil Saudis, we’re simply helping TransCanada ship its goo overseas — and lighting the fuse on the world’s biggest carbon bomb.
Oh, and get a load of how Valero dances around the whole question of where their share of the goo is going: