Skip to Content

Encyclopedia of Canadian pipelines: Keystone XL and Northern Gateway

Read More:
Protesters carry a mock pipeline in a demonstration opposing the Keystone XL project. Photo by Lauri Gorham.

Enbridge. Northern Gateway. TransCanada. Keystone XL. You've heard the names. You've seen the headlines. But what is the controversy all about?

To understand the players, the issues and why they matter so much to people, here’s a backgrounder on the two corporations, their projects, their friends and their foes.

What is Enbridge?

Enbridge, Inc. is a Calgary-based energy corporation with a reach that extends across North America. Best known for its work in the oil and natural gas industries, it's also branched out to greener alternatives, operating seven wind farms in Canada and the U.S., and solar and geothermal projects.

Although environmentalists disagree, the Enbridge website claims the company is one of Canada’s Greenest Employers.

Established in 1949 as the Interprovincial Pipe Line (IPL), the company’s original pipeline ran from oil fields in Alberta to refineries in the east. Now, Enbridge operates the world’s longest crude oil transportation system, moving over two billion barrels per day and transporting 65 per cent of all western Canada’s oil exports. It controls more than 24,000 kilometres of pipeline across North America.

Currently, Enbridge’s most high-profile project is the Northern Gateway pipeline, intended to run from northern Alberta to the coastal community of Kitimat, B,C., where oil would be loaded on tankers for shipment overseas. Enbridge also has plans for a new line to carry tar sands oil from Fort McMurray, Alta., to the coast of Texas  – a project said to be going head-to-head with TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline.

What is TransCanada?

TransCanada is another major North American energy company, also based in Calgary. Like Enbridge, the corporation is primarily focused on natural gas and oil transmission. TransCanada owns more than 57,000 kilometres of natural gas pipeline, spanning the continent and tapping into almost every major gas supply basin.

The company has more than 60 years' experience in the industry, particularly in gas storage and related services. With increasing production out of Alberta’s Athabasca tar sands, developing its oil infrastructure has become a priority.  

TransCanada’s major project, Keystone, is a 3,460-kilometre pipeline transporting oil from Alberta to the American Midwest. The first phase of the pipeline began operating in June 2010; the proposed Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project (Keystone XL) aims to incorporate and extend the current pipeline, taking a more direct route through Montana and South Dakota to another delivery point in Texas.

The Keystone XL pipeline:

TransCanada’s Keystone XL project has become one of the most controversial subjects on the environmental agenda this year. It is, in fact, the extension of an existing crude oil pipeline reaching from Alberta to the American Midwest, which began operating its first phase in 2010.

The second phase of the Keystone project became operational in February 2011, adding another arm that reached further south through Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. Keystone XL – the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion – encompasses phases three and four of the planned TransCanada project. The expanded leg would take a new route, cutting straight across from Hardisty in Alberta southwest to Nebraska, then down to the Texas coast.

The expansion proposes a 2,673-kilometre pipeline that would add as many as 500,000 barrels of oil to the system’s existing capacity of 591,000 barrels per day – meaning the entire Keystone pipeline system would be transporting over 1.1 million barrels a day. According to TransCanada executives, it would be the only pipeline situated to service both the Canadian oil sands and the Gulf Coast refineries.

TransCanada received approval from the National Energy Board for the Canadian portion of Keystone XL in 2010, but U.S. President Barack Obama recently delayed a decision on the American side of the deal. Obama requested a 12 to 18-month review for the pipeline, which analysts said will likely “kill” the expansion altogether.

The decision early in November to delay the Keystone plan came after months of intense activism and pressure from environmental organizations. The environmental group 350.org rallied more than 10,000 people – including several celebrities – to form a human chain around the White House, urging Obama to say “no” to big oil.

(8) Comments

leoc November 29th 2011 | 12:12 PM

And her research  shows most of the money that is fighting the northern pipeline is coming from big business from United States that is funnelled up here through fronts called posing as environmental agencies.  

The US State Dept review for Keystone XL lists Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline at 550,000 initially with ability to handle 800,000 eventually. At the larger volume the pipeline would enable 150 million tonnes of new CO2 emissions to be pumped into our atmosphere every year. That is nearly triple all of BC's fossil fuel burning today. Carbon tax paid? Zero.

We are charging ourselves a carbon tax and working hard to cut CO2 emissions in BC by 10 million tonnes a year in twenty years and then we turn around and enable 150 million new tonnes to be produced that pay no carbon tax? Crazy.

It would require 365 Aframax supertankers per year to haul the oil away.

One other proposed pipeline is the Kinder Morgan Northern Leg into Kitimat as well. Another 75 million tonnes of CO2 and 183 supertankers. Carbon tax paid? Zero.

This planned expansion "twinning" will bring yet another 75 million tonnes of climate destabilizing pollution and 183 supertankers across BC wilds to our coast. It ends up right here in Vancouver. Double bonus. Carbon tax paid? Zero.

Matt November 29th 2011 | 3:15 PM

My only comment about this is that we arent really saving any C02, it will simply be produced from other sources.  Stopping supply from one region just means it will be produced from an other. I would rather see the oil refined domestically to meet our own energy demands.

On the topic of sustainability, I wasnt really aware of any sustainable way to consume a non renewable resource.  We have always been running out its just a matter of when...

Matt November 29th 2011 | 3:15 PM

Also on the subject of taxes, Im not sure how more taxes reduce the amount carbon being released into the atmosphere.

Alan November 30th 2011 | 7:07 AM
Unfortunately a well-organized and richly-funded coterie of enviro-evangelists have fastened on to the oil sands as the doorway to the apocalypse. It'd be laughable if so many people weren't duped by their campaign. In actuality, hysteria and hidden agendas aside, the oil sands produce just 0.1 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions; a much bigger culprit is coal, which is responsible for more than 20 per cent of the world's man-made GHGs. In fact, all of Canada only produces two per cent of the world's entire greenhouse gases and Alberta is responsible for just five per cent of that. Shut down the entire oil sands industry (not just the Keystone XL pipeline) – or, for that matter, Canada itself – and the global CO2 meter would hardly flicker, while the volume of fossil fuels burned in the United States would remain the same. Stepping in as the immediate beneficiaries of the oil sands demise would be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Venezuela and Nigeria – countries whose environmental protection standards, democratic credentials and gender and human rights records fall far short of Canada’s. An unmarried woman living out of wedlock could be stoned to death in Iran. In Fort McMurray, home of the oil sands, she is the Mayor (Melissa Blake). What else do you need to know?
luc February 12th 2013 | 11:23 PM

I agree with the two comments about international interference. The U.S.A. will soon have enough oil to supply its own needs for the next 100 years. Our competion in the Asian markets is unwanted by the U.S.A.  They will make it difficult for us any way they can. Just look into the recent changes the U.S.A. implemented in the way they sell their LNG to Asia. It was a deliberate attempt to disrupt our energy exports. In the matter of energy, U.S.A. are NOT our friends.